R. v. Burgess

Parties

Procedural Posture

Criminal Manslaughter (s.236(b) Criminal Code) / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Hearsay Statements (pre Trial Admissibility)

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether deceased David Burgess’s out-of-court statements to David Crocker are admissible under the state-of-mind (present intentions) exception to the hearsay rule
2. 2 Whether those statements are admissible under the principled approach (necessity and threshold reliability)
3. 3 Whether double-hearsay or implied-hearsay rules preclude admission

Ratio Decidendi

Because necessity was established (declarant deceased) and the statements were contemporaneous, coherent, partially corroborated, made in a natural manner with no convincing motive to fabricate, they satisfied threshold reliability under the principled approach and fit the state-of-mind/traditional exception; their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect, so the statements were admissible for their truth.

Court Disposition

All hearsay statements of deceased David Burgess to David Crocker on July 20, 2011 admitted into evidence; not excluded on probative-value-versus-prejudicial-effect grounds.

Orders

• Admit into evidence the statements made by David Burgess to David Crocker on July 20, 2011 concerning: that he had argued with Vanessa about her smoking marijuana; that Vanessa threatened to kill him; that he contemplated calling 911; that he was afraid to go to bed because he had no lock on the bedroom door; and...