R. v. Oler

R. v. Oler

The court found on the balance of probabilities that (1) Allred had given evidence at the earlier voir dire, (2) he is absent from Canada, and (3) the evidence was taken in the accused's presence and he had a full opportunity to cross-examine. No uncommon unfairness was shown such as minimal Crown effort to secure attendance or prejudicial effect outweighing probative value; accordingly the court exercised its discretion under s.715(1) to admit Allred's prior testimony limited to matters relevant to the current application.

Citation
2019 BCSC 586
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: James Marion Oler; Amicus Curiae: J.M. Doyle
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Retrial / Voir Dire and S.715(1) Application on Admissibility of Prior Testimony
Outcome
Crown application under s.715(1) granted; prior testimony of David Allred admitted for limited purposes
Legal Topics
Section 715(1) Criminal Code, Admission of Prior Testimony, Cross Examination Opportunity
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Section 715(1) Criminal Code Admission of Prior Testimony Cross Examination Opportunity

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

James Marion Oler

Accused

J.M. Doyle

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Criminal Retrial / Voir Dire and S.715(1) Application on Admissibility of Prior Testimony

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the witness's prior testimony at the earlier voir dire qualifies under s.715(1)
  2. 2 Whether the witness is absent from Canada so that prior testimony can be admitted
  3. 3 Whether the prior evidence was taken in the presence of the accused and he had full opportunity to cross-examine

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the balance of probabilities that (1) Allred had given evidence at the earlier voir dire, (2) he is absent from Canada, and (3) the evidence was taken in the accused's presence and he had a full opportunity to cross-examine. No uncommon unfairness was shown such as minimal Crown effort to secure attendance or prejudicial effect outweighing probative value; accordingly the court exercised its discretion under s.715(1) to admit Allred's prior testimony limited to matters relevant to the current application.

Court Disposition

Crown application under s.715(1) granted; prior testimony of David Allred admitted for limited purposes

Orders

  • Grant application under s.715(1) and admit prior testimony of David Allred relating to documents at issue
  • Exclude from consideration portions of Allred's prior evidence unrelated to the current voir dire