R v. D.C.

R v. D.C.

Applying the White Burgess two-stage test the judge found the proffered opinion narrowly met logical relevance but failed on necessity and the gatekeeping balancing: the marginal probative value was outweighed by risks of distraction, prejudice and a likely contested expert battle given competing schools of thought and deficiencies in the report; accordingly the opinion was excluded and Dr. Moore was not qualified as an expert for this matter.

Citation
2024 NSSC 414
Parties
Prosecutor: His Majesty the King; Defendant/accused: D.C.
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Historical Sexual Assault / Voir Dire Expert Qualification (white Burgess Motion)
Outcome
Crown's motion to qualify Dr. Timothy Moore as an expert in human memory denied; proposed expert evidence excluded.
Legal Topics
Expert Qualification, Oath Helping, Necessity (mohan/white Burgess), Gatekeeping and Cost/benefit Balancing, Autobiographical Memory of Children, Historical Sexual Assault
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Expert Evidence Child Abuse Memory Science Expert Qualification Oath Helping Necessity (mohan/white Burgess) +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty the King

Prosecutor

D.C.

Defendant/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Historical Sexual Assault / Voir Dire Expert Qualification (white Burgess Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr. Timothy Moore should be qualified as an expert on autobiographical memory of children
  2. 2 Logical relevance of opinion that a 3-4 year old can form long-term autobiographical memories
  3. 3 Necessity of expert assistance to the trier of fact

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the White Burgess two-stage test the judge found the proffered opinion narrowly met logical relevance but failed on necessity and the gatekeeping balancing: the marginal probative value was outweighed by risks of distraction, prejudice and a likely contested expert battle given competing schools of thought and deficiencies in the report; accordingly the opinion was excluded and Dr. Moore was not qualified as an expert for this matter.

Court Disposition

Crown's motion to qualify Dr. Timothy Moore as an expert in human memory denied; proposed expert evidence excluded.

Orders

  • Crown's motion to qualify Dr. Timothy Moore denied
  • Dr. Timothy Moore is not qualified as an expert in autobiographical memory of children for this proceeding