R. v. Violette

R. v. Violette

The trial judge exercised discretion to permit Crown counsel to refer the witness to specified documents before re-examination: counsel-witness communication after cross-examination is permissible in appropriate cases to correct mistakes and clarify ambiguities, the practice requiring a witness to exhaust memory before consulting notes is not absolute, and re-examination remains confined to matters arising from cross-examination unless the judge grants leave for new matters.

Citation
2009 BCSC 75
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Jean Joseph Violette; Accused: Ronaldo Lising; Accused: Randall Richard Potts; Accused: John Virgil Punko
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Indictment / Voir Dire / Application for Permission to Re Examine Witness During Trial
Outcome
Crown application granted
Legal Topics
Re Examination, Refreshing Memory, Counsel Witness Communication, Trial Judge Discretion
Source Language
English
Criminal Procedure Evidence Re Examination Refreshing Memory Counsel Witness Communication Trial Judge Discretion

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Jean Joseph Violette

Accused

Ronaldo Lising

Accused

Randall Richard Potts

Accused

John Virgil Punko

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Indictment / Voir Dire / Application for Permission to Re Examine Witness During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether counsel may communicate with their own witness after cross-examination and before re-examination
  2. 2 Whether a witness may refresh their memory from documents before re-examination
  3. 3 Whether the witness must first exhaust memory before being allowed to refer to notes

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge exercised discretion to permit Crown counsel to refer the witness to specified documents before re-examination: counsel-witness communication after cross-examination is permissible in appropriate cases to correct mistakes and clarify ambiguities, the practice requiring a witness to exhaust memory before consulting notes is not absolute, and re-examination remains confined to matters arising from cross-examination unless the judge grants leave for new matters.

Court Disposition

Crown application granted

Orders

  • Crown counsel is permitted to refer the witness to the specified documents or portions thereof before re-examination begins
  • Re-examination limited to matters arising from cross-examination unless the court grants leave for new matters