R. v. Newman

R. v. Newman

Ms. Pederson was qualified as an expert in the identified forensic areas based on her CV and viva voce evidence; the Crown's failure to include bullet trajectory analysis in its s.657.3 notice did not automatically exclude her evidence but entitled the defence to seek an adjournment under s.657.3(4) to prepare for cross-examination; variation in the number of cases handled affects the weight of her evidence, not her qualification.

Citation
2012 BCSC 2121
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Michael Bruce Newman
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Oral Ruling on Expert Qualification During Trial
Outcome
Expert witness qualified; trial to proceed with directions allowing defence opportunity to seek adjournment for trajectory matters.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Notice Requirements Under S.657.3, Adjournment for Expert Cross Examination, Qualification of Expert Witnesses, Bullet Trajectory Analysis
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Forensic Ballistics Criminal Procedure Expert Evidence Notice Requirements Under S.657.3 Adjournment for Expert Cross Examination Qualification of Expert Witnesses +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Michael Bruce Newman

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Oral Ruling on Expert Qualification During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ms. Pederson is qualified to give expert opinion evidence in specified forensic areas
  2. 2 Whether the Crown complied with the notice requirements of s.657.3(3)(a)(ii) regarding bullet trajectory analysis
  3. 3 Whether the defence is entitled to an adjournment under s.657.3(4) to prepare for cross-examination due to the notice omission

Ratio Decidendi

Ms. Pederson was qualified as an expert in the identified forensic areas based on her CV and viva voce evidence; the Crown's failure to include bullet trajectory analysis in its s.657.3 notice did not automatically exclude her evidence but entitled the defence to seek an adjournment under s.657.3(4) to prepare for cross-examination; variation in the number of cases handled affects the weight of her evidence, not her qualification.

Court Disposition

Expert witness qualified; trial to proceed with directions allowing defence opportunity to seek adjournment for trajectory matters.

Orders

  • Ms. Pederson is qualified to give expert opinion evidence in examination, mechanical assessment and identification of firearms, firearm components, ammunition, ammunition components, tools and toolmarks, and bullet trajectory analysis.
  • Ms. Pederson may give direct-examination evidence in all qualified areas and the defence will proceed to cross-examination thereafter.