R. v. Violette

R. v. Violette

Statement 1 (employment) is admissible on personal knowledge; Statements 2 and 3 (witness's belief Randy was a Hell's Angel and her fear) are irrelevant and excluded; Statement 4 (threatening messages and cutting off head) is hearsay but admissible under the state of mind exception to show McCapin's anger; Statement...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2009 BCSC 363
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Jean Joseph Violette; Accused: Ronaldo Lising; Accused: Randall Richard Potts; Accused: John Virgil Punko
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire Admissibility Ruling
Outcome
Voir dire ruling: Statement 1 admitted; Statements 2 and 3 excluded; Statement 4 admitted for state of mind; Statement 5 partially excluded (reference to sending Randy excluded, threat to cut off head admissible).
Legal Topics
Hearsay, State of Mind Exception, Statement of Intention, Verbal Act Doctrine, Prejudicial Effect Balancing
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Law Hearsay State of Mind Exception Statement of Intention Verbal Act Doctrine Prejudicial Effect Balancing

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Jean Joseph Violette

Accused

Ronaldo Lising

Accused

Randall Richard Potts

Accused

John Virgil Punko

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire Admissibility Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specified out-of-court statements are hearsay
  2. 2 Whether statements fall within state of mind or statement of intention exceptions
  3. 3 Whether statements qualify as verbal acts

Ratio Decidendi

Statement 1 (employment) is admissible on personal knowledge; Statements 2 and 3 (witness's belief Randy was a Hell's Angel and her fear) are irrelevant and excluded; Statement 4 (threatening messages and cutting off head) is hearsay but admissible under the state of mind exception to show McCapin's anger; Statement 5 is admissible only insofar as the threat to cut off her head but inadmissible to the extent it communicates that McCapin would send Randy (Potts) as that inference is both obvious and impermissibly prejudicial and would improperly attribute action to a third party.

Court Disposition

Voir dire ruling: Statement 1 admitted; Statements 2 and 3 excluded; Statement 4 admitted for state of mind; Statement 5 partially excluded (reference to sending Randy excluded, threat to cut off head admissible).

Orders

  • Ban on publication of voir dire rulings remains in place until verdicts in Indictments 23501 and 23502 or further order of the court
  • Ms. Murphy may testify that McCapin threatened to cut off her head but may not testify that McCapin said he would send Randy (Potts) after her