R. v. Lalo

R. v. Lalo

Limited questioning about whether the complainant was sexually abused by his father was permitted as it directly went to an inconsistency in the complainant's claim of having "zero sexual experience," but evidence and questioning regarding an alleged prior rape at Shelburne were excluded because the judge found the Shelburne incident collateral, its probative value insufficient and substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice and invasion of complainant privacy under s.276 and the Darrach balancing test.

Citation
2003 NSSC 157
Parties
Crown/respondent: Her Majesty The Queen; Defence/applicant: Cesar Lalo
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Assault / Voir Dire Under S.276 (admissibility of Prior Sexual Activity Evidence)
Outcome
Application partly allowed and partly dismissed: limited questioning about alleged sexual assault by the complainant's father allowed; all evidence and questioning about the alleged Shelburne rape excluded.
Legal Topics
Section 276 Criminal Code (prior Sexual Activity), Admissibility, Twin Myths, Relevance and Probative Value, Prejudice Vs Probative Balancing, Privacy of Complainant
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Sexual Offences Section 276 Criminal Code (prior Sexual Activity) Admissibility Twin Myths Relevance and Probative Value Prejudice Vs Probative Balancing +1 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Crown/respondent

Cesar Lalo

Defence/applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Assault / Voir Dire Under S.276 (admissibility of Prior Sexual Activity Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prior sexual activity evidence is admissible under s.276 of the Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether alleged prior sexual assault by complainant's father is admissible to attack complainant's credibility
  3. 3 Whether alleged prior rape at Shelburne is admissible and relevant to the charges against the accused

Ratio Decidendi

Limited questioning about whether the complainant was sexually abused by his father was permitted as it directly went to an inconsistency in the complainant's claim of having "zero sexual experience," but evidence and questioning regarding an alleged prior rape at Shelburne were excluded because the judge found the Shelburne incident collateral, its probative value insufficient and substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice and invasion of complainant privacy under s.276 and the Darrach balancing test.

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed and partly dismissed: limited questioning about alleged sexual assault by the complainant's father allowed; all evidence and questioning about the alleged Shelburne rape excluded.

Orders

  • Allow defence to ask the complainant: "Were you ever sexually abused by your father and if so when?"
  • If the answer is "no," permit limited cross-examination on any inconsistency between that answer and the complainant's prior statements to Constable Fox (only the complainant's own inconsistent statements may be used)