R. v. Brown

R. v. Brown

The inadmissible statement by Detective Hempstead was ambiguous, hearsay and of limited probative value; given the substantial body of admissible evidence and the judge's discretion, a strong immediate admonition (reinforced in the final charge) cured the prejudice and a mistrial was not required.

Citation
2009 BCSC 1869
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Seth Neil Brown
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial (jury) / Mid Trial Application for Mistrial (oral Ruling)
Outcome
Application for mistrial dismissed
Legal Topics
Recognition Evidence, Identification, Mistrial, Admissibility, Similar Fact Evidence, Voir Dire, Jury Directions, Hearsay
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Trial Procedure Recognition Evidence Identification Mistrial Admissibility Similar Fact Evidence +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Seth Neil Brown

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial (jury) / Mid Trial Application for Mistrial (oral Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether impermissible recognition evidence placed before the jury required a mistrial
  2. 2 Admissibility and probative value of recognition evidence and hearsay statements
  3. 3 Whether evidence admitted for one count could be used against the accused on other counts (similar fact evidence)

Ratio Decidendi

The inadmissible statement by Detective Hempstead was ambiguous, hearsay and of limited probative value; given the substantial body of admissible evidence and the judge's discretion, a strong immediate admonition (reinforced in the final charge) cured the prejudice and a mistrial was not required.

Court Disposition

Application for mistrial dismissed

Orders

  • Application for mistrial dismissed
  • Immediate warning to jury to disregard the impugned testimony and reiteration of that warning in the final charge