R. v. Crosby

R. v. Crosby

The trial judge erred by excluding the complainant's first prior statement under s.276 where the material inconsistency bore directly on credibility and was inadmissible only because police questioning incidentally referenced prior consensual sex; s.276 must not be applied so as to deprive the accused of a fair opportunity to test credibility where the prejudicial effect is uniquely attributable to authorities' questioning and the probative value is not substantially outweighed by prejudice. The proper remedy is to admit the statement with a limiting instruction; given the error there is a reasonable possibility of a different verdict and a new trial is ordered.

Citation
[1995] 2 SCR 912
Parties
Appellant/accused: Wayne Scott Crosby; Respondent/crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Complainant: L.R.; Co‑accused: John Rines
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 June 1995
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (conviction Affirmed Below)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; new trial ordered
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault, Admissibility of Prior Sexual History Evidence, Cross‑examination, Credibility Assessment, Section 276 Criminal Code Balancing
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Sexual Assault Admissibility of Prior Sexual History Evidence Cross‑examination Credibility Assessment Section 276 Criminal Code Balancing

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

Wayne Scott Crosby

Appellant/accused

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent/crown

L.R.

Complainant

John Rines

Co‑accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (conviction Affirmed Below)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.276 of the Criminal Code bars admission of prior inconsistent statements that incidentally reference prior sexual activity
  2. 2 Whether exclusion of such statements deprived the accused of a fair opportunity to test complainant credibility
  3. 3 Application of s.276(2) and s.276(3) balancing factors

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred by excluding the complainant's first prior statement under s.276 where the material inconsistency bore directly on credibility and was inadmissible only because police questioning incidentally referenced prior consensual sex; s.276 must not be applied so as to deprive the accused of a fair opportunity to test credibility where the prejudicial effect is uniquely attributable to authorities' questioning and the probative value is not substantially outweighed by prejudice. The proper remedy is to admit the statement with a limiting instruction; given the error there is a reasonable possibility of a different verdict and a new trial is ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; new trial ordered

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Conviction set aside