R. v. D.E.W.

R. v. D.E.W.

Because defence counsel's potential role as a witness combined with counsel's failure to view material videotaped statements before cross-examination created incurable prejudice to the accused's right to make a full answer and defence, the only appropriate remedy was to declare a mistrial.

Citation
2009 NSSC 171
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty The Queen; Defendant: D. E. W.
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Assault / Trial (mistrial Declared)
Outcome
Mistrial declared (oral)
Legal Topics
Mistrial, Counsel as Witness, Right to Full Answer and Defence, Failure to View/disclose Evidence, Legal Aid and Counsel Substitution
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Procedural Law Publication/privacy (s.486.4 C.c.c.) Mistrial Counsel as Witness Right to Full Answer and Defence +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Crown

D. E. W.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Assault / Trial (mistrial Declared)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defence counsel's communications and potential role as a witness create a conflict requiring a mistrial
  2. 2 Whether defence counsel's failure to view key videotaped statements before cross-examination deprived the accused of the opportunity to make a full answer and defence
  3. 3 Whether an adjournment and appointment of new counsel could cure the prejudice identified

Ratio Decidendi

Because defence counsel's potential role as a witness combined with counsel's failure to view material videotaped statements before cross-examination created incurable prejudice to the accused's right to make a full answer and defence, the only appropriate remedy was to declare a mistrial.

Court Disposition

Mistrial declared (oral)

Orders

  • Mistrial declared
  • Correspondence dated April 3, 2009 admitted as Exhibit #4 and placed on trial record