R. v. Palmer

R. v. Palmer

Calls showing requests for drugs are admissible to prove that drug dealing was occurring at the called location, but the police witness was excluded from testifying about any names mentioned in the calls because the witness could not reliably recall the names and inclusion of such unreliable name evidence would add no probative value while posing significant prejudice to the accused's fair trial rights.

Citation
2009 BCSC 751
Parties
Crown/prosecution: Regina; Accused/defendant: Gregory J. Palmer
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Pre Trial Voir Dire on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Crown allowed to lead evidence of drug requests received on the seized cellular phone; witness precluded from testifying about any names mentioned in the calls.
Legal Topics
Hearsay, Telephone Evidence, Drug Trafficking, Principled Hearsay, Probative Value Vs Prejudicial Effect
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Law Hearsay Telephone Evidence Drug Trafficking Principled Hearsay Probative Value Vs Prejudicial Effect

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown/prosecution

Gregory J. Palmer

Accused/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Pre Trial Voir Dire on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of telephone calls to suspects' phones as evidence of drug trafficking
  2. 2 Whether mention of the accused's name in those calls converts the calls into inadmissible hearsay
  3. 3 Application of the principled hearsay analysis (necessity and reliability) if hearsay

Ratio Decidendi

Calls showing requests for drugs are admissible to prove that drug dealing was occurring at the called location, but the police witness was excluded from testifying about any names mentioned in the calls because the witness could not reliably recall the names and inclusion of such unreliable name evidence would add no probative value while posing significant prejudice to the accused's fair trial rights.

Court Disposition

Crown allowed to lead evidence of drug requests received on the seized cellular phone; witness precluded from testifying about any names mentioned in the calls.

Orders

  • Crown permitted to adduce evidence of requests for drugs as received over the cellular telephone.
  • Police witness shall not testify regarding any names allegedly mentioned in those calls.