R. v. W.J.W.

R. v. W.J.W.

The similar fact evidence was excluded because the prior incident was remote in time, unreported, insufficiently similar in detail and setting, lacked distinctive unifying features or repetition indicative of a modus operandi, and therefore its prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value; admission would risk impermissible reliance on disposition and undermine the presumption of innocence.

Citation
2003 NSPC 41
Parties
Prosecution: R.; Accused: W. J. W.; Complainant: C. A.
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Assault and Unlawful Confinement / Voir Dire (admissibility Ruling on Similar Fact Evidence)
Outcome
Similar fact evidence excluded; Crown's application to adduce similar fact evidence dismissed.
Legal Topics
Similar Fact Evidence, Propensity Evidence, Admissibility, Credibility, Corroboration, Presumption of Innocence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Sexual Offences Similar Fact Evidence Propensity Evidence Admissibility Credibility Corroboration +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.

Prosecution

W. J. W.

Accused

C. A.

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Assault and Unlawful Confinement / Voir Dire (admissibility Ruling on Similar Fact Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Crown's proffered similar fact evidence is admissible
  2. 2 Whether probative value of prior incident outweighs prejudicial effect
  3. 3 Whether the prior incident is sufficiently similar in detail, proximity and distinctiveness to the charged conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The similar fact evidence was excluded because the prior incident was remote in time, unreported, insufficiently similar in detail and setting, lacked distinctive unifying features or repetition indicative of a modus operandi, and therefore its prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value; admission would risk impermissible reliance on disposition and undermine the presumption of innocence.

Court Disposition

Similar fact evidence excluded; Crown's application to adduce similar fact evidence dismissed.

Orders

  • Application to admit similar fact evidence dismissed.
  • Publication ban pursuant to s.486 C.C.C.