R. v. U.C.D.

R. v. U.C.D.

Applying Taweel and Handy, extrinsic-facts evidence is presumptively inadmissible and the prosecution bore the persuasive burden to show its probative value outweighed prejudice; the prosecution failed to meet that burden and failed procedural notice requirements, therefore the proposed extrinsic-facts evidence is inadmissible.

Citation
2016 NSPC 15
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused (young Person): U.C.D.
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Youth Justice / Ruling on Admissibility of Extrinsic Facts at Start of Trial (pre Trial Admissibility)
Outcome
Prosecution's application to admit extrinsic-facts evidence dismissed; proposed extrinsic evidence excluded
Legal Topics
Extrinsic Facts, Similar Fact Evidence, Admissibility, Credibility, Publication Ban, Procedural Notice Requirements
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Youth Justice Extrinsic Facts Similar Fact Evidence Admissibility Credibility Publication Ban +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

U.C.D.

Accused (young Person)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Youth Justice / Ruling on Admissibility of Extrinsic Facts at Start of Trial (pre Trial Admissibility)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of prior extrinsic acts (1996-1997) is admissible at trial for offences alleged in 2002-2003
  2. 2 Which party bears the burden to establish admissibility of extrinsic-facts evidence and the applicable standard
  3. 3 Whether the probative value of the proffered extrinsic evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect

Ratio Decidendi

Applying Taweel and Handy, extrinsic-facts evidence is presumptively inadmissible and the prosecution bore the persuasive burden to show its probative value outweighed prejudice; the prosecution failed to meet that burden and failed procedural notice requirements, therefore the proposed extrinsic-facts evidence is inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Prosecution's application to admit extrinsic-facts evidence dismissed; proposed extrinsic evidence excluded

Orders

  • Trial adjourned and briefs filed as ordered (Crown brief filed by 7 December 2015; defence by 18 January 2016) and trial rescheduled to 18 February 2016
  • Prosecution shall not call the extrinsic-facts evidence outlined in its brief