R. v. Scott

R. v. Scott

Court granted the Crown leave to call Dr. Lamba in reply because the defence's testimony and expert evidence transformed the issue of intent into a live, more developed contested matter; the Crown did not unfairly split its case given prior notice, apparent defence acquiescence, lack of prejudice, and the fact this...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2018 BCSC 2554
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Randy William Scott
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Second Degree Murder / Trial (judge Alone) Application for Leave to Call Reply Evidence
Outcome
Application granted - Crown granted leave to call Dr. Rakesh Lamba in reply if deemed necessary
Legal Topics
Reply Evidence, Rebuttal, Case‑splitting, Intent, Expert Witness Scheduling
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Expert Evidence Forensic Psychiatry Reply Evidence Rebuttal Case‑splitting Intent +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Randy William Scott

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Second Degree Murder / Trial (judge Alone) Application for Leave to Call Reply Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown may call a psychiatric expert in reply to defence expert evidence
  2. 2 Whether permitting reply evidence would constitute impermissible splitting of the Crown's case
  3. 3 Whether the defence raised a new matter or made the issue 'live' so as to permit reply evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Court granted the Crown leave to call Dr. Lamba in reply because the defence's testimony and expert evidence transformed the issue of intent into a live, more developed contested matter; the Crown did not unfairly split its case given prior notice, apparent defence acquiescence, lack of prejudice, and the fact this reply evidence relates to an essential element (intent) that took on added significance after defence evidence was adduced.

Court Disposition

Application granted - Crown granted leave to call Dr. Rakesh Lamba in reply if deemed necessary

Orders

  • Crown allowed to call Dr. Rakesh Lamba in reply to the defence expert evidence
  • If required, Dr. Lamba to be made available to testify on October 22, 2018 (or as scheduled)