R. v. Odea

2010 BCSC 1920 R. v. Odea

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Odea, 2010 BCSC 1920 Date: 20101129 Docket: 57207 Registry: Chilliwack Regina v. Tamara Maria Anne Odea and Paul Gordon Olsen Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Morrison Oral Ruling on Voir Dire Counsel for the Crown: Robert Macgowan Counsel for the Accused: Paul McMurray Place and Date of Hearing: New Westminster, B.C. November 29, 2010 Place and Date of Judgment: Chilliwack, B.C. November 29, 2010 [1] THE COURT: One of the concerns that I had was the attack on the credibility and the character of the Crown witness, Ms. Odea, by the defence. I do not think the defence had much choice perhaps under the circumstances, but I do not think it was an attack that was commenced by the Crown. The Crown did what counsel properly do when they know there is bad news coming. They put it in in direct rather than have it come out in cross-examination; I do not think that is attacking the credibility of their own witness. I think it is trying to lessen the impact of the bad news that is coming, namely, that she had a substantial record. [2] Then Ms. Odea was cross-examined somewhat vigorously by Mr. McMurray, but as Judge Romilly said in his decision of R. v. Plasway, 2004 BCSC 84 at para. 25, the paragraph that Mr. McMurray read out: [25] Where credibility is central to the outcome of the trial, the balance may tip in favour of

permitting cross-examination on an accused's criminal record if the accused launches an all-out attack on the credibility and character of the Crown witness. He went on to say: When that tactic is employed, cross-examination of the accused on his or her criminal record allows for a more informed assessment of the credibility of the competing versions of events: R. v. Corbett, supra, at p. 405, per LaForest J. at pp. 437-38; R. v. P.(M.) supra, at p. 198. [3] So obviously there was no editing or sanitizing of the record of Ms. Odea. [4] I am very concerned that the jury understands that they are assessing the character of the witness when they deal with a criminal record. It is difficult when a criminal record comes before a jury; in this case of the two main witnesses as to what occurred, both have criminal records. Mr. Olsen has a substantial criminal record. [5] I will say this: the juvenile record can be put to Mr. Olsen, but only if it is clearly put to him that, for example, the first one, "On June 28, 1991 at the age of 12, were you convicted of assault in Juvenile Court?" and so on. Each time a juvenile record is put to Mr. Olsen it must be made very clear what the date was that he was found guilty of charges, at the ages of 12, 13, and so on. [6] I think in fairness to everybody, including Mr. Olsen, the jury must have a full picture, and I do not think it serves

justice to simply start the record at the adult level. The adult record is not put in context without the juvenile record and I do not think it is necessarily to the detriment of Mr. Olsen. [7] I think that it is my duty to advise the jury in advance that they will hear evidence that Mr. Olsen has a criminal record and that they must be told that they must use that information not to infer that he is more likely to have committed the offence, but they can use it to assess the character and credibility issue. Then of course it will be up to me to deal with it in the charge in a much more comprehensive way. "Morrison J."