R. v. Dempsey

R. v. Dempsey

Excluded evidence of the deceased's sexual history and non-violent criminal propensity as not sufficiently probative and unduly prejudicial; admitted evidence that J.P. Vienneau threatened to accuse the deceased of rape (and related proof of later sexual contact) and admitted evidence of the deceased's reputation for violence and specific violent acts as relevant to whether she was the aggressor; admitted evidence of car theft only for limited contextual purpose (to explain detention centre presence); rejected defence submission that inability to cross-examine a deceased complainant permits wide admission of sexual history evidence.

Citation
2001 BCSC 371
Parties
Crown/prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused/defendant: Paul Dempsey
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal First Degree Murder (retrial) / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Character and Sexual History Evidence Prior to Trial Opening
Outcome
Voir dire ruling: limited admission granted; most sexual history and non-violent criminal propensity evidence excluded; reputation for violence and specific violent acts admitted; J.P. Vienneau threat evidence admitted; car theft admitted for limited contextual purpose.
Legal Topics
Sexual History Evidence, Character Evidence, Hearsay/principled Exception, Voir Dire, Admissibility, Self Defence, Similar Fact Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Law Sexual Offences Sexual History Evidence Character Evidence Hearsay/principled Exception Voir Dire Admissibility +2 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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown/prosecution

Paul Dempsey

Accused/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal First Degree Murder (retrial) / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Character and Sexual History Evidence Prior to Trial Opening

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of the deceased's sexual history is admissible to infer consent or extortion
  2. 2 Whether evidence of the deceased's reputation for violence and specific acts of violence is admissible to support accused's self-defence/attack narrative
  3. 3 Whether evidence of deceased's non-violent criminal propensity is admissible

Ratio Decidendi

Excluded evidence of the deceased's sexual history and non-violent criminal propensity as not sufficiently probative and unduly prejudicial; admitted evidence that J.P. Vienneau threatened to accuse the deceased of rape (and related proof of later sexual contact) and admitted evidence of the deceased's reputation for violence and specific violent acts as relevant to whether she was the aggressor; admitted evidence of car theft only for limited contextual purpose (to explain detention centre presence); rejected defence submission that inability to cross-examine a deceased complainant permits wide admission of sexual history evidence.

Court Disposition

Voir dire ruling: limited admission granted; most sexual history and non-violent criminal propensity evidence excluded; reputation for violence and specific violent acts admitted; J.P. Vienneau threat evidence admitted; car theft admitted for limited contextual purpose.

Orders

  • Admit evidence that J.P. Vienneau was threatened with a false rape accusation and the related whole of his evidence including later sexual contact
  • Admit evidence of the deceased's reputation for violence and specific violent acts as relevant to whether she was the aggressor