The King v. Schmidt

The King v. Schmidt

An accused's out-of-court writings may be treated as admissions of familial relationship and are admissible evidence; on the facts the jury could reasonably infer a blood relationship from the letters and surrounding evidence, but because inadmissible evidence was admitted at trial the proper remedy is to allow the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1948] SCR 333
Parties
Appellant: His Majesty the King; Respondent: Chris. Schmidt
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 June 1948
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario (conviction Quashed Below)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial directed; matter remitted to Court of Appeal for further consideration
Legal Topics
Incest, Consanguinity, Admissions, Hearsay, Jury Evidence, Criminal Code S.204
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Family Law Incest Consanguinity Admissions Hearsay Jury Evidence +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty the King

Appellant

Chris. Schmidt

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario (conviction Quashed Below)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether letters written by the accused constituted admissible admissions of consanguinity
  2. 2 Whether those admissions were sufficient evidence for a jury to find a blood relationship
  3. 3 Whether the evidence relied on below included inadmissible hearsay and required a new trial

Ratio Decidendi

An accused's out-of-court writings may be treated as admissions of familial relationship and are admissible evidence; on the facts the jury could reasonably infer a blood relationship from the letters and surrounding evidence, but because inadmissible evidence was admitted at trial the proper remedy is to allow the Crown's appeal and order a new trial (case remitted for further consideration).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial directed; matter remitted to Court of Appeal for further consideration

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • New trial directed