R. v. Wilder

R. v. Wilder

Judge found statutory preconditions of s.715(1) satisfied (witnesses previously testified in accused's presence and are now absent, ill or deceased), threshold reliability met because prior testimony was under oath and extensively cross-examined (and commission videotaped), and residual discretion did not require...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2002 BCSC 1333
Parties
Crown: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN; Accused: DARA M. WILDER
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Retrial — Voir Dire / Admissibility Ruling (trial Level)
Outcome
Crown application granted in part and evidence admitted
Legal Topics
Hearsay Exceptions, Section 715 Criminal Code, Principled Approach (necessity and Reliability), Prior Testimony / Commission Evidence, Residual Judicial Discretion, Abuse of Process / Suborning Allegations, Disclosure, Admissibility of Documents (business Records), Jury Caution
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Tax Law Constitutional Law Hearsay Exceptions Section 715 Criminal Code Principled Approach (necessity and Reliability) Prior Testimony / Commission Evidence +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 35 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Crown

DARA M. WILDER

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Retrial — Voir Dire / Admissibility Ruling (trial Level)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prior testimony of Breitzman and Gagon admissible under s.715(1) Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether prior testimony/commission evidence and Russ's testimony admissible under the principled hearsay exception (necessity and reliability)
  3. 3 Whether witnesses are unavailable (dead, ill, absent)

Ratio Decidendi

Judge found statutory preconditions of s.715(1) satisfied (witnesses previously testified in accused's presence and are now absent, ill or deceased), threshold reliability met because prior testimony was under oath and extensively cross-examined (and commission videotaped), and residual discretion did not require exclusion because probative value substantially outweighed any prejudice; accordingly prior testimony of Breitzman, Gagon and Russ, Breitzman's commission evidence and Russ's diary admitted; transcripts to be marked as exhibits without reading into record.

Court Disposition

Crown application granted in part and evidence admitted

Orders

  • Prior sworn testimony of James Breitzman admitted into evidence (transcripts and commission evidence)
  • Prior sworn testimony of Hugh Gagon admitted into evidence (transcripts / videotape)