R. v. J.G.B.

R. v. J.G.B.

The prior consistent statement by J.W. was excluded because it did not corroborate the complainant's specific version of events and thus lacked probative value to rebut recent fabrication; however J.W.'s testimony that the accused kissed her was admitted as original evidence because a trier of fact could infer the accused intended to kiss the complainant and the probative value did not exceed prejudicial risk, and the evidence was sufficiently similar and not tainted to be considered under the similar fact evidence framework.

Citation
2008 BCSC 1261
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: J.G.B.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Assault / Voir Dire (admissibility Hearing)
Outcome
Prior consistent statement from J.W. excluded; evidence that J.W. was kissed by the accused admitted as original evidence and admissible for consideration as similar fact evidence
Legal Topics
Prior Consistent Statement, Similar Fact Evidence, Admissibility, Credibility, Recent Fabrication, Probative Vs Prejudicial Balancing
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Law Sexual Offences Publication Ban Prior Consistent Statement Similar Fact Evidence Admissibility Credibility +2 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

J.G.B.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Assault / Voir Dire (admissibility Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a prior consistent statement by J.W. is admissible to rebut an allegation of recent fabrication by the complainant
  2. 2 Whether J.W.'s evidence that the accused kissed her is admissible as original evidence
  3. 3 Whether J.W.'s evidence is admissible as similar fact evidence under the Handy framework

Ratio Decidendi

The prior consistent statement by J.W. was excluded because it did not corroborate the complainant's specific version of events and thus lacked probative value to rebut recent fabrication; however J.W.'s testimony that the accused kissed her was admitted as original evidence because a trier of fact could infer the accused intended to kiss the complainant and the probative value did not exceed prejudicial risk, and the evidence was sufficiently similar and not tainted to be considered under the similar fact evidence framework.

Court Disposition

Prior consistent statement from J.W. excluded; evidence that J.W. was kissed by the accused admitted as original evidence and admissible for consideration as similar fact evidence

Orders

  • Exclude prior consistent statement of J.W.
  • Admit evidence of J.W. that the accused kissed her in the bed