Pleading Not Guilty and Criminal Trials (1:VII): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Pleading Not Guilty and Criminal Trials (1:VII) (view source)
Revision as of 05:04, 29 December 2020
, 29 December 2020no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 255: | Line 255: | ||
Anything the accused says to the police before or after the arrest is admissible as a confession ''only'' if the Crown first proves it was made voluntarily. See the [[Criminal Law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1:IX) | Section IX: Charter]] below for more information on confessions. | Anything the accused says to the police before or after the arrest is admissible as a confession ''only'' if the Crown first proves it was made voluntarily. See the [[Criminal Law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1:IX) | Section IX: Charter]] below for more information on confessions. | ||
==== e | ==== e) Leading a witness ==== | ||
Counsel is generally not permitted to lead its own witness (i.e. suggest answers), with the exception of preliminary matters such as the witness’s identity, residence, age, and other matters that are not at issue, and that merely help to set the stage. In any case, testimony that is adduced from leading questions tends to be afforded less weight, as the words have come from the mouth of someone other than the witness. '''Leading questions are proper and encouraged for cross-examination'''. | Counsel is generally not permitted to lead its own witness (i.e. suggest answers), with the exception of preliminary matters such as the witness’s identity, residence, age, and other matters that are not at issue, and that merely help to set the stage. In any case, testimony that is adduced from leading questions tends to be afforded less weight, as the words have come from the mouth of someone other than the witness. '''Leading questions are proper and encouraged for cross-examination'''. | ||
==== | ==== f) Expert opinion evidence ==== | ||
Opinion evidence is permitted where it assists the trier of fact to draw conclusions from the evidence. There are two types of opinion evidence: non-expert and expert. Non-expert opinion evidence is generally not permitted. Expert evidence is not permitted where the trier of fact is capable of reaching a conclusion without such evidence. Expert opinions are necessary where the trier of fact would be unable to draw a conclusion with respect to the evidence. Experts must first be established as such – the determination is made in a ''Voir Dire'' (a trial within a trial). For a more complete explanation of the law on opinion evidence, see ''R v Mohan'' [1994] 2 SCR 9. | Opinion evidence is permitted where it assists the trier of fact to draw conclusions from the evidence. There are two types of opinion evidence: non-expert and expert. Non-expert opinion evidence is generally not permitted. Expert evidence is not permitted where the trier of fact is capable of reaching a conclusion without such evidence. Expert opinions are necessary where the trier of fact would be unable to draw a conclusion with respect to the evidence. Experts must first be established as such – the determination is made in a ''Voir Dire'' (a trial within a trial). For a more complete explanation of the law on opinion evidence, see ''R v Mohan'' [1994] 2 SCR 9. | ||