5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Pleading Not Guilty and Criminal Trials (1:VII)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Pleading Not Guilty and Criminal Trials (1:VII) (view source)
Revision as of 22:40, 29 August 2022
, 22:40, 29 August 2022→f) Expert opinion evidence
| Line 262: | Line 262: | ||
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. However, '''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. However, '''leading questions are proper and encouraged for cross-examination.''' | ||
==== f) Expert | ==== 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 | 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 ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1994/1994canlii80/1994canlii80.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAJciB2IG1vaGFuAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1 R v Mohan]'' [1994] 2 SCR 9. | ||
Section s 657.3(3), of the ''Criminal Code'', imposes an obligation on the defence to disclose any expert opinion evidence it intends to call prior to trial. ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii688/1999canlii688.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAJciB2IHN0b25lAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1 R v Stone]'', [1999] 2 SCR 290 sets out the guidelines which apply to both Crown and defence in disclosing expert opinion evidence. | Section s 657.3(3), of the ''[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/ Criminal Code]'', imposes an obligation on the defence to disclose any expert opinion evidence it intends to call prior to trial. ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii688/1999canlii688.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAJciB2IHN0b25lAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1 R v Stone]'', [1999] 2 SCR 290 sets out the guidelines which apply to both Crown and defence in disclosing expert opinion evidence. | ||
=== 11. Conclusion of the trial === | === 11. Conclusion of the trial === | ||