Please call to schedule your free initial consultation: 403.262.1110|melanie@yycdefence.ca

Sitar Milczarek

Sitar & Milczarek

Criminal Appeals & Complex Trials

The Defence Toolkit – August 31, 2024: Identifying a Voice

Posted On 31 August 2024

This week’s top three summaries: R v AW, 2024 ONCA 564: #voice ID, R v Jeremschuk, 2024 ABCA 268: #angry self defence, and R v Roche-Garcia, 2024 BCCA 298: s.715.1 embedded #hearsay

R v AW, 2024 ONCA 564

[July 17, 2024] Voice Identification [Reasons by L. Madsen J.A. with M.L Benotto J.A. and L. Favreau concurring] 

AUTHOR’S NOTE: In this case, the conviction at trial was based solely on voice identification evidence, underscoring the critical need for precise and thorough jury instructions on this matter. Voice identification can be even more unreliable than visual identification due to various factors that may affect the accuracy of recognition, such as the quality of the audio, the conditions under which the voice was heard, and the familiarity of the listener with the speaker’s voice.

Importance of Proper Jury Instructions on Voice Identification:

  1. Inherent Dangers of Voice Identification:
    • Unreliability: Voice identification is inherently less reliable than other forms of evidence because voices can easily be misidentified. Factors such as stress, background noise, and the passage of time can significantly impact a person’s ability to accurately recognize a voice.
    • Subjectivity: The perception of voices is highly subjective, and even confident witnesses can be mistaken. This subjectivity makes voice identification evidence prone to error, necessitating a strong caution to the jury.
  2. Need for Specific Caution:
    • General vs. Specific Instructions: While general warnings about the dangers of voice identification are important, it is crucial that the jury also receives specific instructions tailored to the particular circumstances of the case. The jury must understand the specific frailties of the voice identification evidence presented, including any factors that might undermine its reliability.
    • Case-Specific Frailties: In this case, the trial judge provided general instructions about the risks associated with voice identification but failed to highlight the specific issues that could affect the reliability of the identification in this instance. Such specific frailties might include the duration and clarity of the voice recording, the conditions under which the voice was heard, or any inconsistencies in the witness’s recognition of the voice.

Legal Framework and Guidance from the Case:

The case provides valuable insights into the general principles surrounding voice identification evidence, emphasizing the need for careful judicial guidance when this type of evidence is central to the prosecution’s case.

  1. Jury Instruction Guidelines:
    • Mandatory Caution: Judges are required to caution the jury that voice identification evidence is inherently unreliable and should be treated with great care. The jury should be advised to scrutinize the evidence thoroughly, considering all potential weaknesses.
    • Instructions on Specific Factors: The jury must be directed to consider factors such as the quality of the voice recording, the length of time the voice was heard, the witness’s familiarity with the voice, and any conditions that might have affected the witness’s ability to accurately identify the voice.
  2. Illustrative Examples:
    • The case serves as an example of how a failure to provide adequate instructions on the specific frailties of voice identification can lead to an unjust conviction. It highlights the need for judicial precision in guiding the jury through the evaluation of this type of evidence.

Conclusion:

This case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of correct and complete jury instructions regarding voice identification evidence. Given the inherent unreliability of such evidence, it is essential that juries are fully informed of its potential weaknesses, both in general and within the specific context of the case. Failure to provide such instructions can lead to wrongful convictions, making this an area where precision in judicial guidance is of utmost importance.

 

OVERVIEW

[1] On March 5, 2022, following a six-day trial, the appellant was convicted by a jury of sexual assault contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C- 46. The sexual assault took place in or around 1983 and was reported approximately 37 years later, in 2020. The complainant did not see her assailant but testified that she knew him from high school and recognized his voice during the assault.

[3] Identity was the central issue in this trial involving significantly historical allegations. The appellant submitted, and his evidence was, that he did not attend the event following which the assault took place, had never been alone with the complainant, and did not commit the assault. While the complainant was certain that the voice she heard during the assault was that of the appellant, this was steadfastly denied. In the circumstances, as is detailed below, both an eye-witness caution and a complete and specific voice identification caution were required to be put to the jury. They were not.

[4] For the following reasons, I would allow the appeal.

IDENTIFICATION AS THE CENTRAL ISSUE IN THIS TRIAL

[23] Identification was the central issue in this trial. The complainant was certain that she was assaulted by the appellant whom she knew from high school and spoke to at the dance; while the appellant was adamant that he was not at the dance and had never been alone with her. This raised questions about whether the appellant was, in fact, the man she said was the DJ at the dance and the man whose voice she said she recognized during the assault.

[24] While the appellant raises distinct issues regarding the need for both an eyewitness identification warning and a complete voice identification caution, in this case the issues are interrelated. There were significant frailties in the complainant’s evidence and discrepancies between the evidence of the complainant and the appellant on the issue of identity generally. The trial judge was required to carefully warn the jury, from the perspective of both eye-witness and voice identification evidence, about the risks of identification evidence generally and the many frailties in the evidence of identity in this case.

[25] However, the jury charge contained no eye-witness identification caution, and only a limited, general voice identification caution. This amounted to non-direction and misdirection. The jury was not provided with the legal tools required to accurately decide the case. This is discussed further, below.

EYE-WITNESS IDENTIFICATION

[26] The dangers of eye-witness identification are well established, as is the imperative to caution juries accordingly. This is because eye-witness identification evidence can be difficult to assess and triers of fact may place undue reliance on such testimony when compared to other types of evidence: R. v. M.B., 2017 ONCA 653, 356 C.C.C. (3d) 234, at para. 29. Trial judges “must convey to the jury the judicial experience that eye-witness evidence poses serious dangers”: R. v. Lewis, 2018 ONCA 351, at para. 18; R. v. Graham, 2023 ONCA 273, at para. 11.

[27] Where identity is an issue, the jury must be instructed to consider the frailties of eye-witness identification and to scrutinize the witness’ description of the assailant: R. v. Vassel, 2018 ONCA 721, 365 C.C.C. (3d) 45, at para. 184. Considerations include whether the suspect was known to the witness; the circumstances of contact during the offence; and whether the sighting was in circumstances of stress. Any distinctive characteristics of the suspect may be important: R. v. Jack, 2013 ONCA 80, 294 C.C.C. (3d) 163, at paras. 12-17. The specific dangers arising on the evidence in the particular case must be highlighted for the jury: Lewis, at para. 18.

[28] Relatedly, the charge must caution the jury that an in-dock identification is to be given little, if any weight: R. v. Hibbert, 2002 SCC 39, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 445, at paras. 47-53. As Laskin J.A. stated in R. v. Biddle, 2018 ONCA 520, 141 O.R. (3d) 401, at para. 32:

The dangers linked to eyewitness identification evidence increase exponentially when it comes to in-dock identifications. In these circumstances, the identification witness has a person presented to them, a person who the police obviously believe committed the offence. Given the suggestive nature of in-dock identifications, they are renowned for being of little to no value as reliable identification evidence. [Citations omitted].

[29] Recognition evidence, a subset of eye-witness evidence where the parties are known to one another, is subject to the same frailties and juries must be cautioned accordingly: M.B., at paras. 33-34; R. v. Chafe 2019 ONCA 113, 145 O.R. (3d) 783, at paras. 30-32; R. v. Mohamed, 2023 ONCA 104, 423 C.C.C. (3d) 308, at para. 83; R. v. Gordon, 2022 ONCA 799, at para. 41, leave to appeal refused, [2023] S.C.C.A. No. 136. The jury may be “quick to assume that, because the witness knows the person, the identification must be correct”: Chafe, at para. 29. In Chafe, this Court confirmed, at paras. 29-30, that recognition evidence is not “different” from identification evidence and that the same level of assessment of the evidence must apply:

Even though the witness knows the person identified, the time to observe, the circumstances of the observation, and the conflicting evidence constitute factors which the trier of fact must grapple with in order to determine reliability. The usual dangers of eyewitness identification exist in a case of alleged recognition. [Citations omitted.]

[30] Watt’s Manual of Criminal Jury Instructions, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 2015) provides detailed examples of the many considerations that may be put to the jury regarding eye-witness identification, in the context of a review of the specific evidence in the trial. These include, for example: the reliability of the witness’ memory; whether the witness knew the person before seeing them; how good the lighting was; how far apart the parties were; how long after the events the witness gave the first description; and whether the witness described any particular features of the accused.

[37] There was no discussion in the pre-charge conference of any possibility that the complainant incorrectly identified the appellant as the DJ at the dance. Nor was there any discussion about the need to warn the jury regarding the lack of probative value of the in-dock identification, having been made almost 40 years after the assault, or the fact that the in-dock identification could at least as easily be based on their time in the high school band together as on the appellant having been the DJ at the dance. Indeed, the underlying assumption that the appellant was the DJ at the dance appeared to persist, with the main issue being whether the complainant correctly identified the assailant’s voice during the assault, not whether the appellant was there at all and could have been misidentified.

[38] As stated, the issue not having been discussed at the pre-charge conference other than with reference to voice identification, no eye-witness caution was included in the jury charge.

[40] The Crown asserts on appeal that a specific eye-witness identification instruction was unnecessary. The Crown argues that this was neither a “true” eyewitness identification nor a recognition case because the complainant “knew” the appellant and they had spoken – per the complainant’s testimony – during the dance. Thus, the Crown asserts, the “typical markers of unreliability associated with eye-witness identification or recognition evidence were not present.”

[41] I disagree. An eye-witness identification caution was essential, given the appellant’s position that he had been misidentified and that he was not at the dance at all. As Chafe instructs, that the appellant and complainant “knew” each other is not an answer, given that the inherent dangers of recognition evidence mirror those of eye-witness identification more generally: Chafe, at para. 29. [Emphasis by PJM]

[42] While, on the complainant’s evidence, she and the appellant spoke over the course of the dance and the basis of her recognition of him that evening was not fleeting, the apparent recognition ought to have been considered in the context of the circumstances of the dance, the conflicting evidence of the appellant, the almost 40 years since the assault allegedly took place, and the gaps in the complainant’s memory of many aspects of the evening: Chafe, at para. 30. In my view, the in-dock identification would have amplified the effect of this error.

[44] The jury should have been reminded, for example, that there was no evidence given of any distinctive characteristics of the appellant in 1983, no evidence about lighting, or the ability to see clearly at the dance, and that there were significant gaps in the complainant’s memory of that evening that could bear on whether she had correctly identified him or whether she may have been misremembering the evening given the lengthy passage of time: Jack, at para. 16; R. v. Virgo, 2016 ONCA 792, at para. 17; R. v. Nikolovski, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197, at para. 19. The jury should have been cautioned that the complainant’s certainty that the appellant was the DJ did not mean she could not have been mistaken.

[45] The failure to include an eye-witness identification caution in the jury charge was a non-direction amounting to an error of law.

VOICE IDENTIFICATION

[46] Voice identification evidence is even more fraught with dangers than eyewitness identification and must be treated with extreme caution: R. v. Dodd, 2015 ONCA 286, 322 C.C.C. (3d) 429, at para. 79; R. v. Clouthier, 2012 ONCA 636, at para. 19; R. v. Quidley, 2008 ONCA 501, 232 C.C.C. (3d) 255, at para. 36. Where the Crown relies on voice identification evidence, the trial judge must give careful direction to the jury, warning of mistakes that can be made. Juries should be reminded that witness confidence in the voice identification does not substantially correlate to the accuracy of identification: R. v. Pinch, 2011 ONSC 5484, at para. 75; see also R. v. Masters, 2014 ONCA 556, 313 C.C.C. (3d) 275, at para. 47. [Emphasis by PJM]

[47] The complainant’s evidence was that while she did not see the assailant, she recognized his voice during the attack and the voice was that of the appellant whom she knew from high school and with whom she had spoken throughout the evening. While the assailant spoke very few words, she simply “knew” it was the voice of the appellant based on their earlier interactions. She could not describe the voice in any way, testifying that it had “been too many years”.

[48] The appellant’s evidence was that he was not there, and by implication, that the voice she heard during the assault was not his.

[49] The trial judge was alive to the importance of a detailed voice identification caution that should be related to the evidence in the case. In the pre-trial conference, he discussed the need to adapt the model eye-witness caution to direct the jury to consider factors such as: evidence about the quality of the complainant’s hearing; the reliability of her testimony; whether the complainant had known the assailant prior to recognizing his voice; whether there was anything which hindered the complainant’s hearing; and how far apart the parties were physically. The trial judge noted the relevance of reminding the jury of the complainant’s inability to describe her assailant’s voice in any way. The trial judge stated, “I am going to incorporate some of these factors because I think they are relevant.” Regrettably, despite this discussion, most of those specific cautions were not included in the charge.

[51] The charge did little, however, to relate the general caution to the specific evidence in the case. The trial judge reminded the jury that the complainant was in and out of consciousness during the sexual assault, and referred to earlier portions of his charge which highlighted the passage of time and the gaps in her memory. The trial judge did not relate the caution to other evidence in the trial.

[52] The appellant’s position is that the failure to caution the jury regarding specific frailties of the voice identification evidence in relation to the specific evidence in the case, was a misdirection amounting to an error of law. The appellant asserts that the error is amplified by the absence of the eye-witness caution.

[54] While there are cases in which a voice identification caution has been held not to be required, this will be a case-by-case determination having regard to the balance of the evidence in the case: R. v. Deol, 2017 ONCA 221, 352 C.C.C. (3d) 343, at paras. 10-12; R. v. Badgerow, 2019 ONCA 374, 146 O.R. (3d) 35, paras. 54-62. In this case, where the complainant did not see the assailant and voice identification was the only source of identification, utmost caution, through the specific and detailed approach contemplated by the trial judge in the pre-trial conference, was required. [Emphasis by PJM]

[55] Specifically, in addition to the general caution provided with respect to voice identification, the trial judge was required to draw a careful linkage between the challenges inherent in voice identification evidence generally and the specific evidence in this case: Pinch, at para. 76; R. v. Neverson, 2020 QCCS 253, at para. 171, aff’d, 2024 QCCA 519; R. v. Badgerow, 2008 ONCA 605, 237 C.C.C. (3d) 107, at para. 9, leave to appeal refused, [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 483. The jury ought to have been reminded, for example, that:

a) That there was no evidence of the quality of the complainant’s hearing in 1983 or of how far apart they were when the complainant says she and the appellant were speaking at the dance;

b) That on the complainant’s evidence, the assailant spoke very few words during the assault;

c) That among the few words spoken during the assault, the assailant said he was a cop, but it was undisputed that the appellant was not a police officer at the time of the offence;

d) That the complainant was unable, in any way, to describe the assailant’s voice. She could not speak to its pitch, character or whether her assailant had an accent. She simply stated that she “knew” it was him from speaking to him throughout the evening and from knowing each other in high school;

e) That the evidence was that the complainant and appellant were not friends and not close. It was therefore an open question whether they interacted enough that the complainant would be familiar with his voice after they had both left high school;

f) The evidence was that there was music playing at the dance and the complainant acknowledged that she “couldn’t hear too well”;

g) The complainant made the identification in fleeting moments of consciousness in a highly stressful context and testified that when she awoke, she did not feel fully alert or awake; and

h) That the complainant’s certainty that it was the appellant’s voice she heard did not mean that she could not be mistaken or that her identification of him was accurate.

[56] The voice identification caution in the jury charge was inadequate in the circumstances of this case and amounts to an error of law. This error, as with the failure to include an eye-witness identification caution, cannot be saved by considering the instructions as a whole, as the Crown argues.

[58] The absence of any eye-witness caution combined with an incomplete voice identification caution, where the frailties in identification evidence were profound, result in a reasonable possibility that the verdict would have been different had the errors not been made. For these reasons, the curative proviso cannot apply: R. v. R.V., 2019 SCC 41, [2019] 3 S.C.R. 237, at para. 85; R. v. Van, 2009 SCC 22, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 716, at para. 34.

R v Jeremschuk, 2024 ABCA 268

[August 14, 2024] Self-Defence and Anger [Majority Reasons by Feehan and de Wit JJ.A. with Slatter J.A. dissenting]

AUTHOR’S NOTE: In cases involving self-defence, it’s crucial to recognize that human emotions, such as anger and frustration, can be present without necessarily negating a claim of self-defence. The law does not require accused individuals to maintain a stoic demeanor when responding to an aggressive application of force against them. Instead, the focus remains on whether there is a reasonable doubt that the accused was acting with the purpose of self-defence, even if emotional responses like anger were part of the equation.

Key Points on Emotions and Self-Defence:

  1. Emotional Responses in Self-Defence:
    • Natural Human Reaction: It’s natural for a person to feel and express emotions such as anger when faced with an aggressive situation. The law acknowledges that an individual’s emotional state does not necessarily negate their right to self-defence, as long as their actions can still be justified within that context.
    • Purpose of Self-Defence: The critical question in self-defence cases is whether the accused’s actions were motivated by the need to protect themselves. Emotions like anger can coexist with a legitimate purpose of self-defence.
  2. Crown’s Strategy in Cross-Examination:
    • Challenging the Purpose: In this case, the Crown attempted to undermine the self-defence claim by highlighting the accused’s anger during cross-examination. The Crown argued that anger, rather than self-defence, was the true motivation behind the accused’s application of force.
    • Requirement for Conviction: For a conviction to be lawful, the trial judge would need to determine that the accused’s anger was the sole or predominant reason for the use of force, excluding any legitimate purpose of self-defence. Simply being angry does not suffice as a basis for conviction if there is reasonable doubt that self-defence was also a motivating factor.
  3. Legal Principles on Mixed Motives:
    • Coexisting Motives: The law allows for the possibility that a person may have multiple motivations when using force, including both anger and self-defence. What matters is whether self-defence was one of the reasons, even if not the only one.
    • Burden of Proof: The Crown bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not acting in self-defence. If there is any reasonable doubt that the accused’s actions were motivated by a need for self-protection, they are entitled to an acquittal, regardless of any anger they may have felt.

Conclusion:

The presence of anger or frustration does not inherently disqualify an accused from claiming self-defence. As long as there is a reasonable doubt that the accused was acting out of a legitimate need to protect themselves, their emotional state should not be the sole basis for a conviction. Courts must carefully consider the full context and motivations behind the use of force, ensuring that self-defence claims are not unfairly dismissed due to natural human reactions.

Introduction

[1] Aaron Jeremschuk, the appellant, was convicted of aggravated assault contrary to section 268 of the Criminal Code. The altercation involved grabbing, wrestling, and punching between the parties and lasted for approximately 30 seconds. The trial judge rejected the appellant’s claim of self-defence, by finding that the force used by him was not for self-defence, but to punish the complainant. The trial judge also found that the force used by the appellant was not reasonable.

[2] The complainant, Robert Jakubec, at the appellant’s request, helped the appellant hang a boxing heavy bag in the appellant’s garage. After the heavy bag was hung, there was a conversation and the appellant thanked the complainant for his help.

[3]….When the appellant asked, “I’ve heard you talk about me, and you know, the neighbours next door, like why would you do that?”, the complainant “got really, really defensive, kind of got really pissed, got in my face, face went red, and he’s like, “I can say whatever the hell I want”. The appellant testified the complainant swore at him and said, “I think I called him a name, I think I called him a ‘bitch boy’ or something like that”.

[4] This resulted in the complainant initiating physical contact by grabbing the appellant by the shirt, getting in the appellant’s face and wagging his finger in his face. The appellant responded by stating, “What the hell are you doing? Like get the hell out of here. Like you were talking about me, like what the heck is going on?”.

[5] The complainant did not let go of the appellant’s shirt and they wrestled. As the complainant did not have a shirt on, the appellant grabbed him by the shoulder and flipped him onto the ground. The complainant continued to hold onto the appellant’s shirt when he was on the ground and tore the shirt. The appellant was standing over the complainant, but the complainant would not let go of the shirt, and therefore the appellant pulled the complainant’s hand off his shirt. The appellant then backed away. The appellant testified, “After I — after I got him to the ground and got him to let go of my shirt, I backed away, he stood up” (TT 59/35-36).

[6] When the complainant stood up, he and the appellant were standing face-to-face. The complainant then punched the appellant in his right eye causing a noticeable black eye. The appellant responded by punching the complainant in the face four to five times in rapid succession, which took approximately three seconds. This resulted in the complainant stumbling backwards, but he was not knocked to the ground. The physical contact lasted approximately 20 seconds in total.

[7] They continued to yell at each other; the appellant followed the complainant out of his garage and told the complainant to leave his property by the back gate.

[8] The complainant suffered a displaced fracture of his collarbone because of being thrown to the ground.

Standards of Review

[10] “When a verdict is reached by a judge sitting alone, there are two bases on which a court of appeal may be justified in intervening because the verdict is unreasonable: (1) where the verdict cannot be supported by the evidence; or (2) where the verdict is vitiated by illogical or irrational reasoning”: R v Brunelle, 2022 SCC 5 at para 7, citing R v Beaudry, 2007 SCC 5, R v Sinclair, 2011 SCC 40.

[11] The Supreme Court of Canada summarized the applicable principles in R v P(R), 2012 SCC 22 at paragraphs 9-10:

To decide whether a verdict is unreasonable, an appellate court must, as this Court held inR v Yebes, 1987 CanLII 17 (SCC), [1987] 2 SCR 168, and R v Biniaris, 2000 SCC 15, [2000] 1 SCR 381, at para. 36, determine whether the verdict is one that a properly instructed jury or a judge could reasonably have rendered. The appellate court may also find a verdict unreasonable if the trial judge has drawn an inference or made a finding of fact essential to the verdict that (1) is plainly contradicted by the evidence relied on by the trial judge in support of that inference or finding, or (2) is shown to be incompatible with evidence that has not otherwise been contradicted or rejected by the trial judge (R v Sinclair, 2011 SCC 40, [2011] 3 SCR 3, at paras. 4, 16 and 19‑21; R v Beaudry, 2007 SCC 5, [2007] 1 SCR 190).

Whereas the question whether a verdict is reasonable is one of law, whether a witness is credible is a question of fact. A court of appeal that reviews a trial court’s assessments of credibility in order to determine, for example, whether the verdict is reasonable cannot interfere with those assessments unless it is established that they “cannot be supported on any reasonable view of the evidence” (R v Burke, [1996] 1 SCR 474, at para. 7).

[12] This Court also described appellate assessment for an unreasonable verdict in R v Flagler, 2022 ABCA 396 at paragraph 46, “Assessment of an ‘unreasonable verdict’ argument considers whether: (a) the evidence as a whole is such that a reasonable jury, properly instructed and acting judicially, could have reached the verdict; or (b) fact findings on material matters of a decisive character are clearly wrong; or (c) whether the reasoning process used by the judge to get from the evidence to the verdict makes sense: R v Blea, 2012 ABCA 41 at paras 39-40, 66 Alta LR (5th) 163”.

[13] As the Supreme Court of Canada recently explained in R v Hodgson, 2024 SCC 25, there are situations where a trial judge’s shortcomings in assessing the evidence constitute an error of law (para 34). Citing R v JMH, 2011 SCC 45, the court in Hodgson identified four such non-exhaustive situations:

1. Making a finding of fact for which there is no evidence – however, a conclusion that the trier of fact has a reasonable doubt is not a finding of fact for the purposes of this rule;

2. The legal effect of findings of fact or of undisputed facts;

3. An assessment of the evidence based on a wrong legal principle;

4. A failure to consider all of the evidence in relation to the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence.

Analysis

Credibility

[14] It needs to be noted at the outset that unlike most self-defence cases, this was not a credibility case. The trial judge accepted the evidence of the appellant without qualification. The complainant testified at trial but the trial judge found he was not credible….

[16] In contrast, in the case at bar, the trial judge, having rejected the complainant’s evidence, was left with only the appellant’s evidence, which she accepted as credible. Still, she found that two of the three elements of self-defence were not present. That conclusion is unsupported by the evidence.

Self-defence

[18] Section 34(1) of the Criminal Code sets out the three requirements for self-defence:

Defence — use or threat of force 34(1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

[19] In R v Khill, 2021 SCC 37, the Supreme Court of Canada labeled the requirements in section 34(1)(a-c) as the catalyst, the motive, and the response. The approach to self-defence in Khill was recently reconfirmed in Hodgson. The evidence accepted by the trial judge supports a finding that all three requirements were present in this case.

The Catalyst

[20] For section 34(1)(a), the catalyst, there is no issue that force was used by the complainant against the appellant. The complainant initiated the physical contact by grabbing the appellant’s shirt. He initiated physical contact a second time when after being thrown on the ground, the complainant rose and punched the appellant in the face. Both parties agree that the catalyst was present in this case.

The Motive

[21] Section 34(1)(b), as explained in Khill, is a subjective inquiry of the state of mind of the accused….

In Hodgson, the Supreme Court stated, “[F]or this second element, a failure to consider the accused’s personal purpose, a subjective inquiry which goes to the root of self-defence, would have been an error of law”: at para 75 (emphasis in original).

[22] The only evidence of the appellant’s subjective motive for responding to the complainant’s use of force was that he was acting to defend himself.

[23] During examination in chief, the appellant did not testify as to his mental state or the reasons for his use of force. However, in cross-examination he stated (TT 61/29-62/5):

Q Okay. So these four to five punches that you throw, in this direction, are they with a closed fist?

A   Yes.

Q   Are they to his face?

A   Yes.

Q   Are you angry?

A   A little bit.

A   I wasn’t happy that the whole situation had happened, I wasn’t happy about him admitting that he — he had been talking about us and that he had grabbed me, none of that was necessary.

Q   Okay. And so because it wasn’t necessary I take it you took advantage of the situation to correct it.

A   I defended myself.

[24] The only direct evidence was given by the appellant that he acted in self-defence. The Crown suggested to him, in cross-examination, that he took advantage of the situation to correct that the complainant had been talking negatively about him, but he responded that he was acting in self-defence. There was no further cross-examination on this issue and no other evidence regarding the motive for his actions.

[25] The appellant admitted he was a bit angry but there was no evidence that he used force other than for self-defence. He further testified (at TT 63/19 -37):

A   When I punched him, he had had his fists — he punched me in the face and then I hit him, it was like two — three seconds.

Q   Okay. But during those four to five punches, am I right that he is just standing there and you are punching his face four to five times?

A   No.

Q   Okay.

A   He had his fists up because he punched me, and I hit him. It was — there was – there was no like — it was like three or four seconds. I don’t know what he was doing. I hit him because he hit me.

Q   Okay. But I — and I’m sorry I’m just going to ask you again then. During this, when you were punching him four or five times, he was just standing there allowing you to punch him?

A   I don’t think he was expecting to be hit four times.

Q   Okay. But to be clear, you were angry when you were hitting him?

A   I was about as angry as he was.

[26] The appellant’s evidence that he was angry was not evidence he acted for a purpose other than self-defence. [Emphasis by PJM]

[27] In “The New Defence Against Force” (2014) 18 Can Crim L Rev 269, David M. Paciocco (as he then was) discussed section 34(1)(b) and confirmed that the use of force out of anger, frustration or retaliation is not a proper motive. He further explained at 284:

To be clear, this precondition is met even where the accused acts for mixed purposes, including anger or frustration, so long as there is a reasonable doubt about whether he was also acting for the purpose of self-defence throughout the act sought to be defended. The law does not expect those who are attacked unlawfully to be without emotion.

[28] That there may be purposes, as well as self-defence, for the actions of an accused was also recognized in R v Zsombor, 2023 BCCA 37 at paragraph 29:

I accept that an accused’s purposes may be layered, in that they may act for a defensive purpose in addition to another purpose. However, for the defence of selfdefence to succeed, the accused must have acted for a defensive or protective purpose, regardless of what other purposes may have co-existed. . . .

[30] When physical force is used against an individual, they can defend themselves by responding so that the physical force does not continue or to deter the assailant from using further physical force. Very few people would not respond with a certain amount of anger after being struck or held by another against their will. An accused cannot strike or continue to strike a person after the threat of an assault is gone because they continue to be angry. However, being angry does not preclude an individual from using force to stop an attack or deter a further attack.

[33] The trial judge in her reasons did not refer to any evidence to support her conclusion that the appellant was not acting in self-defence. In oral argument on appeal, the Crown could not point to any evidence from the appellant where he stated that his actions in using force were for any purpose other than self-defence. It is incongruent for the trial judge to state that she accepts the appellant’s evidence and then reject the critical statement that he was acting in self-defence without any explanation.

[34] The trial judge could only have relied on circumstantial evidence for her conclusion that the appellant did not act to defend himself. Inferences must be reasonably and logically drawn from facts established by the evidence or they become conjecture or speculation: R v Kruk, 2024 SCC 7 at para 150. Inferring guilt from circumstantial evidence requires that the inference be the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from the underlying facts and that there are no other reasonable possibilities inconsistent with guilt. See, R v Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, at paras 30, 37. The trial judge in this case would have to have considered circumstantial evidence to overcome the direct evidence of the appellant that he acted in self-defence, which was not contradicted.

[35] However, there was no circumstantial evidence that could lead to an inference that the appellant used force towards the complainant for reasons other than for self-defence or that self-defence was not at least one of the reasons.

[36] This error alone supports a conclusion that the verdict was unreasonable because the trial judge relied on circumstantial evidence which failed to support beyond a reasonable doubt that subjectively the respondent had acted out of motive that was not for the purpose of defending himself.

[39] We have read the reasons of my colleague in dissent. We differ on how we characterize the facts of this case and whether the evidence could support the trial judge’s conclusions. For that reason, we have set out in detail the evidence of the appellant and emphasize that his evidence was accepted by the trial judge, and she never limited or rejected any of the appellant’s testimony.

[40] As a result, we conclude that this case meets the standard for appellate intervention as the trial judge drew a conclusion unsupported by the evidence. The direct evidence of the appellant was that he acted in self-defence and there was no circumstantial evidence to contradict his direct evidence. The trial judge accepted the appellant’s evidence and did not point to any facts that contradicted his evidence that he acted to defend himself. There was no evidence upon which the Crown could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant did not act in self-defence.

[41] However, that does not end the analysis as there was also evidence which supported the conclusion that the appellant satisfied the requirements for section 34(1)(c), the response.

The Response.

[42] The third element of self-defence requires that the acts used by the accused are reasonable in the circumstances. A reasonableness standard requires that the actions of the accused are in accordance with community norms. An accused will be expected to conduct themselves as a reasonable person would in the circumstances. This strikes an appropriate balance between the security of the person who acts and the security of the person who is acted upon: Khill at para 62.

[43]…As the court in Khill explained, section 34 sets out a modified objective standard which takes into consideration the personal circumstances and experiences of the accused. This assessment should reflect the perspective of a reasonable person with some of the accused’s qualities and experiences. However, a trier of fact should not simply slip into the mind of the accused: Khill paras 64-67. As Hodgson further explained, whether an act of self-defence was reasonable in the circumstances calls for “an assessment of the overall reasonableness of the accused’s conduct according to the statutory factors” at para 76.

[51] In this case, the appellant is not arguing there was a palpable or overriding error regarding the trial judge’s findings of fact. The trial judge accepted the evidence of the appellant and rejected the evidence of the complainant. However, the trial judge erred when she improperly weighed or balanced factors, failed to consider relevant factors and erroneously considered irrelevant factors in concluding that the appellant’s response was not reasonable.

[52] First, in considering the nature of the force (section 34(2)(a)), as discussed above, the trial judge stated the accused “goaded” the complainant into an argument. The definition of goaded is to “provoke or annoy someone so as to stimulate some action or reaction”. Therefore, for this to be a relevant consideration, the appellant would have needed to goad the complainant into a physical altercation. The trial judge stated, “[The accused’s] concern was always to punish the complainant for talking about him and that is what he talked about before the altercation and that is what he said after the altercation.” (TT 88/30-35)

[53] Not only was there an absence of evidence to support that conclusion, but the appellant’s evidence was that he was surprised by the complainant’s action. The trial judge asked the appellant what he was feeling when the complainant grabbed his shirt. The appellant answered (at TT 69/2, 6-7):

A   What is going on? Like why did this escalate so quickly? . . . I just didn’t understand why it happened, why it was happening.

Goading cannot be logically inferred from this evidence.

[54] Having concluded that the appellant goaded the complaint, when considering section 34(2)(c), the person’s role in the incident, the trial judge also held, “it was the accused who started the incident” referring to the comments made by the appellant that he had heard the complainant was talking negatively about him to the neighbors. Again, there needed to be goading into a physical altercation. However, there was no evidence that the appellant wished for this to become a physical altercation. Not only was there no evidence of this, the appellant testified that after he had been grabbed by the complainant and before he flipped the complainant to the ground, he told him, “Get the hell out of here, like what the hell are you doing?” (TT 59/4).

[55] As there was no evidence to support the appellant goading the complainant into a physical altercation, the conclusion that the appellant started the incident was also unsupported. If anything, the evidence supports the opposite conclusion, that the complainant initiated the physical incident. To conclude that the accused started the incident is unreasonable and not a logical result of the evidence.

[57] The trial judge further concluded, “There was never any concern about the force used”. This is not a relevant factor to consider when determining whether an accused was acting in self-defence. As demonstrated in Knott, an accused need not be scared to rely on self-defence. In this case, there was no evidence whether the appellant was concerned about the force used against him or whether he was scared. He was not questioned about this by his counsel or the Crown. A person who is trained to defend themselves may not be in fear if they are attacked, but that does not mean that they cannot defend themselves.

[58] The trial judge considered the “extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the use of force” (section 34(2)(b)) and concluded, “not only did this very fit accused have other means at his disposal, simply removing the complainant’s arm, he never gave any thought to the harm his actions could cause” (at TT 89/1- 4).

[59] This conclusion was contrary to the evidence that the appellant removed the complainant’s hand from his shirt but this did not cause the complainant to stop using force.

[60] The Supreme Court in Khill explained that “the fact finder ‘shall’ consider all factors set out in paragraphs (a) to (h) of s. 34(2) that are relevant in the circumstances of the case” at para 68, but in this case, the trial judge overlooked or failed to fully analyse the sequence of events. The evidence of the appellant has been set out in detail above. The complainant first initiated contact with the appellant when he grabbed the appellant’s shirt and would not let go. They wrestled and the appellant told him to, “get the hell out of here”, but the complainant would not let go of the appellant’s shirt. Because the complainant was not wearing a shirt, the appellant grabbed the complainant’s shoulder and threw him to the ground, then removed the complainant’s hand from his shirt and moved away.

[61] The medical evidence was that the complainant’s collarbone injury occurred when the complainant was thrown to the ground. The force used by the appellant when he threw the complainant to the ground could not have been excessive as it did not deter the complainant from holding onto the appellant’s shirt, then standing up and punching the appellant in the face…

[63] The trial judge considered section 34(2)(e), the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident and stated, “It would be difficult to have two parties with greater differences in age, fitness, weight and height”. The complainant was 59 years of age, 5’5” tall, and weighed 140 pounds, while the appellant was 6 feet tall, 200 pounds, and 39 years of age.

[64] These differing characteristics may be of importance in certain circumstances, especially where there is only a threat of force or the physical actions of the complainant are significantly less than the force used by the accused. In the circumstances of this case, notwithstanding the differences in age and size, it was the complainant who initiated the physical contact by grabbing the appellant’s shirt. According to the evidence accepted by the trial judge, the parties wrestled, the appellant threw the complainant to the floor, and then removed the complainant’s hand from his shirt. The appellant then stepped back; however, this clearly was not sufficient force to deter the complainant, notwithstanding his older age and smaller size, because he stood up and punched the appellant in the eye. The appellant then responded by throwing four to five punches within three to four seconds. This force did not knock the complainant down and only resulted in minor bruises and lacerations to the complainant’s face.

[68] Moreover, the question of “peril” had little to do with the principle put forward by the defence. The full paragraph from Robinson at paragraph 28 reads:

A tolerant approach also needs to be taken to the issue of “nature and proportionality” given that the person defending himself or herself (or another person) is acting in the heat of the moment and cannot be expected to “weigh to a nicety” the exact measure of necessary defensive action or the consequences of such action: R v Kong, 2005 ABCA 255 at paras 208-210, per Wittmann JA, dissenting, endorsed in 2006 SCC 40, [2006] 2 SCR 347. The law recognizes that people who perceive themselves to be in a position of peril do not have time for full reflection and that errors of judgment will be made. In considering the reasonableness of the accused’s conduct, it is important to consider the entire situation, paying sufficient attention to the factual context and the whole of evidence: R v Evans, 2015 BCCA 46; and Johnson ABQB at para 231.

The trial judge failed to consider this principle of law referenced in self-defence cases for almost 100 years. It is best stated in the case of R v Baxter (1975), 27 CCC (2d) 96 at 111 (CA), where Justice Martin stated:

Moreover, in deciding whether the force used by the accused was more than was necessary in self-defence under both s. 34(1) and (2), the jury must bear in mind that a person defending himself against an attack, reasonably apprehended, cannot be expected to weigh to a nicety, the exact measure of necessary defensive action.

The Supreme Court of Canada most recently phrased this principle in Hodgson stating, “A person in a threatening situation need not carefully assess the threat and thoughtfully determine the appropriate response” at para 78. See also: R v Ogal, [1928] 23 Alta LR 511 (CA), [1928] 3 DLR 676, R v Antley, [1964] 1 OR 545 (CA), [1964] 2 CCC 142, R v Kandola (1993), 27 BCAC 226.

[70] The case law is clear that the amount of force used to repel an attack need not be precisely calculated. In the heat of an altercation, the exact measure of a defensive action may be difficult to ascertain. This is especially so in the circumstances of this case, where the complainant continued to use force against the appellant even after he was thrown to the ground by the younger and stronger appellant. An accused may be mistaken about the nature and extent of force necessary for self-defence but the mistake as to the amount of force may still be reasonable in the circumstances. See R v Kong`, 2005 ABCA 255 at paras 208-209; dissent affirmed by SCC, 2006 SCC 40.

[71] The appellant’s response was not unreasonable as he need not weigh to a nicety the amount of force he used to repel the complainant. The appellant threw a combination of punches, four to five in two to three seconds, that did not knock the complainant down or cause him any serious injury. Defending oneself did not require that the responding actions of the appellant be exactly the same force as used by the complainant. It is unreasonable to hold him to a standard of using lesser force.

[73] In applying the law on the reasonableness of the appellant’s actions in self-defence as set out in section 34(2), the trial judge erred by concluding that the appellant “goaded” the complainant and started the confrontation when there was no evidentiary support for that determination, by considering the irrelevant factor that the appellant was not scared, by ignoring the evidence that the appellant removed the complainant’s hand from his shirt, thus concluding, contrary to the evidence, that the appellant made no effort to respond by other means, and by failing to consider the principle that the response to force need not be weighed to a nicety. As a result, the trial judge’s assessment of the reasonableness of the appellant’s actions was itself unreasonable. This unreasonable assessment combined with her conclusion that the appellant was not acting in self-defence were errors that resulted in an unreasonable verdict.

Conclusion

[74] The appeal is allowed. The conviction for aggravated assault is set aside and an acquittal is entered.

R v Roche-Garcia, 2024 BCCA 298

[August 19, 2024] s.715.1 Video-Recorded Evidence and Embedded Hearsay [Reasons by Fitch J.A. with Horsman and Skolrood JJ.A. concurring]

AUTHOR’S NOTE: In criminal trials, judges play a crucial gatekeeping role in determining the admissibility of hearsay evidence, even when defence counsel does not object during the proceedings. This responsibility was highlighted in a case where an alleged dying declaration was introduced into evidence without the necessary procedural safeguards.

Key Issues:

  1. Dying Declaration in Hearsay:
    • Definition and Admissibility: A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who believes they are about to die, concerning the circumstances of their impending death. It is an exception to the hearsay rule and can be admitted as evidence under certain conditions.
    • Gatekeeping Responsibility: Regardless of whether defense counsel objects, the trial judge must assess the admissibility of such evidence through a voir dire—a preliminary examination to determine the statement’s reliability and relevance. This ensures that only reliable evidence is presented to the jury.
  2. Failure to Conduct a Voir Dire:
    • Improper Admission: In the case at hand, the alleged dying declaration was admitted into evidence without a voir dire. It was presented through a s.715.1 video statement of a witness, which was uncontested in terms of its general admissibility. However, the admissibility of the dying declaration within that video required separate consideration.
    • Lack of Special Instructions: The judge did not provide specific instructions to the jury regarding the reliability and proper use of the dying declaration, which is essential in guiding the jury on how to weigh such evidence. This omission could have led to an improper assessment of the evidence.
  3. Impact on the Case:
    • Crucial Evidence of Identification: The dying declaration in this case was a key piece of evidence identifying the assailant in a murder trial. The reliability of this identification was therefore critical to the jury’s decision-making process.
    • Requirement for Voir Dire: Given the significance of the dying declaration, the judge was required to conduct a voir dire to thoroughly evaluate its admissibility before allowing it to be presented to the jury. This would have also necessitated a specific jury instruction on how to treat this type of evidence.

Conclusion:

Trial judges must exercise their gatekeeping function diligently, particularly with hearsay exceptions like dying declarations. Even in the absence of an objection from counsel, the judge must ensure that any hearsay evidence admitted is reliable and properly contextualized for the jury. In this case, the failure to conduct a voir dire and provide special instructions on the dying declaration constituted a significant procedural error, potentially affecting the fairness of the trial and the reliability of the verdict.

Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Fitch:

I. Introduction and Overview of the Issues on Appeal

[1] In the late evening hours of January 26, 2019, Zenen Cepeda Silva (“Cepeda Silva”) was shot once in the torso as he sat with his wife, Maria Baldivia (“Baldivia”), on the front porch of their Vancouver duplex. He lost consciousness due to rapid blood loss and, despite emergency medical intervention at the scene, was pronounced dead at the hospital a short time later.

[2] The appellant, Alvaro Roche-Garcia, was charged with the first degree murder of Cepeda Silva. Following a five-week trial before a judge and jury, the appellant was convicted of the offence charged.

[3] The central issue at trial was identity. The Crown’s case against the appellant may fairly be described as formidable. It consisted of four main pillars. First, Baldivia testified that she was acquainted with and recognized the appellant as the shooter. Second, video surveillance evidence taken from the back of a restaurant near Cepeda Silva’s residence captured a man arriving in a vehicle minutes before the shooting. He parked the vehicle and left. Very shortly after the shooting, he returned and briefly placed what appears to be a handgun on the roof of the car before driving away. Allison Latimer (“Latimer”) identified the vehicle captured on the video as her own. She had loaned it to the appellant before the shooting. The appellant returned the vehicle to her the morning after the shooting. Third, the appellant’s roommate, David Galan Lago (“Galan Lago”), identified the appellant as the person depicted in the video. Fourth, the bullet that killed Cepeda Silva passed through his body and was found lodged in the front door of his side of the duplex. A second spent bullet was found in a search of the appellant’s residence. It was lodged in a refrigerator and had been fired from inside the appellant’s bedroom. A forensic firearm and tool mark examiner testified that these two bullets were fired from the same gun.

[6] First, the appellant submits that the judge erred in law by admitting the deceased’s statement to Baldivia identifying him as the perpetrator. The statement at issue, which consists of the words “…look how Alvaro has killed me”, was said by Baldivia to have been made immediately after the shooting and very shortly before Cepeda Silva died. I will sometimes refer to this statement as the deceased’s “identifying declaration”.

[7] Baldivia suffered a stroke shortly before the trial and was unable to testify. The evidence she gave on the preliminary inquiry—which included reference to the deceased’s identifying declaration—was admitted at trial pursuant to s. 715(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 [Code].

[8] The appellant takes no issue with that ruling on appeal. He complains, however, that there was no separate inquiry into the admissibility of the deceased’s post-shooting declaration that “Alvaro has killed me”. It would appear that the issue was not identified by counsel or the trial judge. The identifying declaration was whisked into evidence on the coattails of Baldivia’s preliminary inquiry testimony…

… Even if the evidence would inevitably have been admitted pursuant to a recognized exception to the hearsay rule—as a dying declaration or spontaneous utterance—the appellant submits that, as a consequence of the oversight, the ultimate reliability of this evidence was not challenged, and the judge gave the jury no warning about its obvious frailties.

[10] Third, the appellant submits that the judge erred by permitting the Crown to lead prior consistent out-of-court statements made by Baldivia that identified him as the shooter. He further complains that the Crown improperly elicited one of these statements in the re-examination of Baldivia’s granddaughter, Kadesha Fuste (“Fuste”). Alternatively, the appellant says the judge erred by failing to caution the jury against using Baldivia’s prior consistent statements for a prohibited purpose in both the main charge and in response to a question asked by the jury about whether they could know if Baldivia identified the appellant as the shooter when she was interviewed by the police the evening of the offence.

[14] In response to the first ground of appeal, I understand the Crown to concede that the identifying declaration embedded in Baldivia’s preliminary inquiry testimony was not made admissible by virtue of the s. 715(1) ruling…

…Finally, the Crown submits that if the admissibility of the identifying declaration had been litigated at trial, the evidence would inevitably have been admitted pursuant to the dying declaration or spontaneous utterance (res gestae) exception to the hearsay rule. In these circumstances, the Crown submits that failure to identify the need for an admissibility voir dire in relation to this evidence may properly be characterized as a harmless error curable through application of the proviso found in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Code.

[18] For the reasons that follow, I would dismiss the fresh evidence application. Regrettably, however, I have concluded that a new trial is required.

[19] In my view, the judge erred in law by permitting the introduction of Cepeda Silva’s identifying declaration in the absence of an admissibility voir dire and ruling. The use the jury might have made of Baldivia’s evidence that the deceased identified the appellant by name as the shooter cannot be known. The error gives rise to a risk that, in convicting the appellant, the jury gave weight to evidence probative of the central issue in the case, the admissibility of which was never determined. Even if the evidence would likely, or even inevitably, have been admitted, the jury’s verdict was uninformed by critical evidence available to the defence the jury never heard—evidence that was capable of undermining the reliability of Baldivia’s evidence on this issue. Further, the jury received no instructions from the judge on how to assess the ultimate reliability of this evidence. At minimum, what the defence lost as a consequence of this error was the opportunity to persuade the jury that Baldivia’s evidence on this point was unreliable and deserving of no weight.

[21] Finally, even if it was open to the Crown to adduce, through Fuste, Baldivia’s prior consistent identification of the appellant as the shooter, this evidence was not admissible in re-examination. Respectfully, the judge erred in law in permitting this highly prejudicial evidence to go before the jury in the re-examination of Fuste.

[22] Despite the formidable nature of the Crown’s case, I do not consider this to be an appropriate case in which to apply the curative proviso in the face of what I consider to be serious legal errors.

II. Summary of the Evidence and Proceedings at Trial

1. Baldivia’s Evidence

[24] Baldivia testified over two days at the preliminary inquiry. On the first day, she testified through a Spanish speaking interpreter…

…The judge eventually intervened, noting that the way in which the evidence was being elicited would give rise to difficulties in having a transcript prepared. He directed the interpreter to wait until the witness had finished her response before translating it. This direction came after Baldivia had testified that Cepeda Silva identified the appellant by name as the shooter at the time of the incident and very shortly before he died.

[25] As to the circumstances of the offence, Baldivia testified that she was having a cigarette with the deceased on their front porch. The entrance to both front doors of the duplex is accessed by a small landing, three or four stairs up from the yard. A pony wall runs along the front of the landing, separating the porch from the yard. Baldivia and the deceased lived on one side of the duplex and Baldivia’s relatives, including Fuste, lived on the other.

[26] Baldivia testified that she and Cepeda Silva were facing the front door about to go back inside when she heard a big bang. Her husband fell in through the door when she opened it. She saw the appellant on the other side of the pony wall holding a gun in his outstretched arm. He was wearing light-coloured clothing. She did not see him approach until after the shot had been fired. There was no verbal exchange between the appellant and the deceased before the shot was fired. Baldivia testified that they did not speak with anyone else while sitting on the front porch that evening.

[27] Baldivia testified that she recognized the appellant. She said they met “a long time ago” when both of them were living in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Baldivia said she lived in Albuquerque for approximately four years. She would see him “now and then” in that context. She identified the appellant in court as the shooter.

[29] As noted earlier, Baldivia testified that as she tried to hold her husband up after the shooting, he said to her, “[L]ook how Alvaro has killed me.” There was evidence that the appellant was called “Alvaro” by others who lived in Vancouver and socialized in the Cuban community.

[30] When the trial began, it was uncertain whether Baldivia’s declining health would render her unable to testify. The ruling admitting Baldivia’s preliminary inquiry testimony was not made until the end of the third week of the trial. Following the ruling, the judge instructed the jury that she was unavailable to testify at trial due to medical circumstances. The jury was instructed that counsel could not have anticipated this turn of events at the time of the preliminary inquiry.

[31] The jury listened to a recording of Baldivia’s preliminary inquiry testimony after the s. 715(1) admissibility ruling. The jury was also provided with a transcript of her testimony as an aid to follow along as the recording was being played.

[32] I have listened to the audio recording of Baldivia’s preliminary inquiry evidence. Despite the translation difficulties alluded to earlier in these reasons, Baldivia’s attribution to the deceased of his identifying declaration can clearly be heard. It is also clearly reflected in the transcript of her testimony.

[35] Baldivia said the appellant crossed the sidewalk and “ran off”. She said the appellant turned around the block “really quickly like running” and “in a hurry”. She later testified that the appellant left the scene “in a real hurry…almost running”.

[36] Baldivia acknowledged having been convicted of a violent offence in Cuba and of a drug-related offence in the United States.

2. Baldivia’s Statements to the Police: What the Jury Heard

[38] The Crown called both officers at trial. Detective Gow was asked whether Baldivia provided the name of a potential suspect in her January 27, 2019, statement. He confirmed that she did. He was specifically instructed by Crown counsel not to name the person so identified. Detective Wong provided similar evidence, noting that Baldivia could only provide a first name and some information about how she knew this person. He, too, was instructed by Crown counsel not to name the suspect identified by Baldivia as the shooter. The jury did not hear any further evidence concerning the substance of Baldivia’s out-of-court statement to Detectives Gow or Wong on January 27, 2019.

[39] Later in the trial, Crown counsel (not counsel on appeal) advised the trial judge that he did not elicit from Detectives Gow and Wong the name of the suspect provided to the police by Baldivia because, in his view, “that would be considered a prior consistent statement of the witness”…

[41] Although the Crown did not concede this point on appeal, I am satisfied on the basis of Detective Campbell’s evidence that an astute jury would infer Baldivia had identified the appellant as the shooter in her statement to Detectives Gow and Wong.

III. Analysis

2. Analysis of the Grounds of Appeal

a) Ground #1: The Admission of Cepeda Silva’s Identification of the Appellant Embedded in Baldivia’s Preliminary Inquiry Evidence

[92] I understand the Crown to accept the proposition that a hearsay statement embedded in testimony admitted under s. 715(1) of the Code is not admissible unless it qualifies for admission pursuant to an established hearsay exception or the principled approach. Put simply, presumptively inadmissible hearsay cannot ride into evidence on the coattails of an admissibility ruling made pursuant to s. 715(1): R. v. Hoffman, 2021 ONCA 781 at paras. 58–63.

[93] The Crown bore the initial burden of establishing that Cepeda Silva’s hearsay statement identifying the appellant as the shooter was admissible. If the evidence was found to be admissible pursuant to an established hearsay exception, the burden would shift to the appellant to show that the evidence, despite falling within a traditional exception, should nevertheless be ruled inadmissible: R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40 at para. 214

[96] In any event, I am not prepared to give defending counsel’s failure to object to the admission of this evidence the substantial weight the Crown asserts it should have. I emphasize that the Crown bore the initial burden of establishing the admissibility of the deceased’s identifying declaration. Further, even though he received no assistance from counsel on this point, it was the ultimate responsibility of the trial judge to ensure that presumptively inadmissible evidence, highly prejudicial to the appellant, not be ushered into evidence without an admissibility ruling. As I noted in R. v. A.L., 2020 BCCA 18 at para. 150, leave to appeal ref’d, [2020] S.C.C.A. No. 83, “[t]he gatekeeping function of trial judges is such that they have a duty to vigilantly assess and exclude inadmissible evidence regardless of the positions taken (or not taken) by counsel.”

[97] At the same time, the fact that the issue was not identified at trial puts this Court in the difficult position of being asked to undertake an admissibility analysis now, and do so on an undeveloped record: Bero at para. 12. The issue is further complicated by the absence of any suggestion of ineffective representation at trial.

[100] The jury also received a mid-trial instruction on the use they could make of Baldivia’s evidence. This instruction, given before Baldivia’s preliminary inquiry evidence was played for the jury, is set out below:

Of course, because she’s not here, she’s not here to be cross-examined. So, the examination and cross-examination at the preliminary inquiry will stand as her evidence in this trial.Now, it’s up to you to decide how much or how little you’ll believe or rely upon her evidence. As is the case with any witness, you may believe and rely on all, part or none of it in deciding the case. However, when you consider this evidence, remember that you didn’t see or hear Ms. Baldivia testify, and also consider to what extent there’s a dispute about what she said in her evidence.

[Emphasis added.]

[101] Against this background, I cannot conclude with any degree of confidence that the jury would have understood from the general hearsay instruction given in the main charge that they could not have regard to Cepeda Silva’s identification of “Alvaro” as the shooter.

[102] I have come to this conclusion for a number of reasons. First, as Cepeda Silva’s declaration embedded in Baldivia’s preliminary inquiry evidence was not identified by counsel or the judge, the general hearsay instruction was not specifically linked to this evidence. Second, the instruction affirmed that the rule against hearsay is a general one subject to exceptions. Third, it is reasonable to conclude that the jury would regard the mid-trial instruction on the use they could make of Baldivia’s evidence as a specific instruction applicable to her evidence. Nowhere was the jury instructed that Cepeda Silva’s identification of the shooter, embedded in Baldivia’s evidence, was inadmissible hearsay. There was no dispute about what Baldivia heard her husband say, and the jury was instructed that it was open to them to believe and rely on all of her testimony. Finally, our abiding faith in the ability of juries to understand and follow instructions is premised on those instructions being clear: R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670 at 692, 1988 CanLII 80

[103] I turn next to the Crown’s submission that Cepeda Silva’s identifying declaration, as testified to by Baldivia, would inevitably have been admitted under one or both of two established exceptions to the hearsay rule—as a dying declaration or as a spontaneous utterance.

[104] The criteria for admissibility under the dying declaration exception are not in issue in this case. The declaration must be made under a settled, hopeless expectation of almost immediate death, the statement must concern the circumstances of the death, the statement must be such that it would have been admissible had the deceased been able to testify, and the index offence must be the homicide of the declarant: R. v. Nurse, 2019 ONCA 260 at paras. 71–72.

[105] As noted in Nurse at para. 73:

Dying declarations can be very powerful. After all, the statements come from the very person who was killed, speaking about the circumstances of their death, often moments before the solemn event of their death. However, these inherent strengths are counterbalanced against the obvious inability to crossexamine the declarant. It is for this reason that the “courts have insisted on strict adherence to the prerequisites of the exception before granting admissibility”: see Lederman, Bryant and Fuerst, at p. 377. Davis J. in [R. v. Schwartzenhauer, [1935] S.C.R. 367, [1935] S.C.J. No. 7] at p. 369 S.C.R., underscored this caution by adopting the following passage from Byles J. in R. v. Jenkins, [(1869), L.R. 1 C.C.R. 187]:

These dying declarations are to be received with scrupulous, I had almost said with superstitious, care. The declarant is subject to no cross-examination. No oath need be administered. There can be no prosecution for perjury. There is always danger of a mistake that cannot be corrected.

[Emphasis added.]

[106] The spontaneous utterance exception involves a statement “made under the stress or pressure of such a dramatic or startling act or event” that the possibility of concoction or deception can safely be discounted: Nurse at paras. 79–82, citing the judgment of Robins J.A. in R. v. Khan, [1988] O.J. No. 578, 42 C.C.C. (3d) 197 (C.A.), aff’d [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531, [1990] S.C.J. No. 81.

[107] These two exceptions “share certain functional features”: Nurse at para. 78. In both, the circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness springs from the context in which the statement is made. In the case of a dying declaration, it has been said that, when every hope of this world is gone, “the mind is induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth”: R. v. Woodcock (1789), 1 Leach 500, 168 E.R. 352 (K.B.) at 353. The rationale for the spontaneous utterance exception lies in the fact that the statement is made while the impact of the shocking event is still operative, and before any opportunity to fabricate has arisen: Khan at 208.

[118] Without foreclosing litigation of this issue on the retrial, and on the basis of the limited submissions we heard on appeal, I see no realistic prospect that the deceased’s identifying declaration would have been excluded on grounds that one or both of the two potentially applicable hearsay exceptions are invalid. Similarly, and on the basis of the argument made on appeal, it is my tentative view that the evidence would likely have been found to meet the criteria for admission as a dying declaration or a spontaneous utterance.

[120] Given the undeveloped state of the record on factual matters of potential relevance and the disposition I am proposing, I decline to express any definitive view about whether the appellant had a realistic chance of having this evidence excluded on exceptional grounds—that, despite falling within a valid exception to the hearsay rule, the evidence lacks the indicia of threshold reliability that would be required to gain admission under the principled approach. The appellant would have to respond to the Crown’s position that many of its arguments appear either to be subsumed by the requirements of the exceptions themselves, or are relevant to the assessment of ultimate, not threshold, reliability. Further, the appellant would have to contend with the considerable body of independent evidence confirming the reliability of Baldivia’s evidence.

[124] I do not think it is an answer to this ground of appeal to say that what was lost is attributable to the ineffective assistance of counsel, and to dismiss it because ineffective assistance has not been raised by the appellant. Respectfully, and even though he did not receive from counsel the assistance to which he was entitled, what was lost is attributable to the trial judge’s failure to exercise his gatekeeping function at the admissibility stage. If an admissibility inquiry had been conducted, as it should have been, it is likely that the frailties associated with this evidence, identified by counsel on appeal, would have been identified in the court below. Even if the judge ruled the evidence to be admissible, the jury would have been alive to the need for close consideration of the reliability of this evidence, certainly through the submissions of the appellant’s trial counsel and, quite possibly, through a direction from the trial judge warning the jury of the need for caution before acting on it. I consider the consequences of this error in law to be serious. Identity was the main issue at trial. As is evident from their questions, the jury was focused on this very issue.

[126] As noted in Nurse, evidence of this kind is powerful and potentially very persuasive: at para. 73. The Crown (perhaps inadvertently) reminded the jury that “they”—Baldivia and Cepeda Silva—had not seen Alvaro until after the shot had been fired. The jury may well have understood this submission to harken back to Cepeda Silva’s identifying declaration as testified to by Baldivia.

[127] At the end of the day, we cannot know what use the jury might have made of this evidence. We do know that the jury did not hear the evidence or submissions that could conceivably cast doubt on whether the statement was even made. Nor did the jury receive any instructions alerting them to the need for caution before acting on this aspect of Baldivia’s account. In R. v. McIntosh, [1938] 1 W.W.R. 211 at 214 (B.C.C.A.), Martin J.A. said that “every principle of justice requires that every reasonable opportunity should be afforded the accused to answer accusations so difficult to meet as those made by a ‘witness’ from the grave.” The remarks have obvious application to this appeal.

c) Ground #3: Improper Admission of Baldivia’s Prior Consistent Statements Identifying the Appellant as the Shooter

[156] The appellant submits that the Crown adduced two prior consistent statements made by Baldivia on the central topic of the identity of the shooter: the first inadvertently and indirectly through the combined effect of the evidence of Detectives Gow, Wong, and Campbell; and the second advertently and directly in the re-examination of Fuste.

[157]The out-of-court identification evidence is not admitted to prove the truth of the earlier identification, but to assist the trier of fact in making an informed determination as to the weight it should give to the in-court identification of the accused as the perpetrator.

[158] The leading case in this area is R. v. Tat, (1997), 14 C.R. (5th) 116, 1997 CanLII 2234 (Ont. C.A.). In Tat, Justice Doherty identified two situations in which out-of-court statements of identification may be admitted:

[35] Firstly, prior statements identifying or describing the accused are admissible where the identifying witness identifies the accused at trial. The identifying witness can testify to prior descriptions given and prior identifications made. Others who heard the description and saw the identification may also be allowed to testify to the descriptions given and the identifications made by the identifying witness [citations omitted] …

[36] Clearly, the evidence of the prior descriptions given and the prior identifications made by the identifying witness constitute prior consistent statements made by that witness. Generally speaking, evidence that a witness made prior consistent statements is excluded as irrelevant and selfserving. However, where identification evidence is involved, it is the in-court identification of the accused which has little or no probative value standing alone. The probative force of identification evidence is best measured by a consideration of the entire identification process which culminates with an in-court identification [citations omitted] …

[37] If a witness identifies an accused at trial, evidence of previous identifications made and descriptions given is admissible to allow the trier of fact to make an informed determination of the probative value of the purported identification. The trier of fact will consider the entirety of the identification process as revealed by the evidence before deciding what weight should be given to the identification made by the identifying witness. Evidence of the circumstances surrounding any prior identifications and the details of prior descriptions given will be central to that assessment…

[38] Where a witness identifies the accused at trial, evidence of prior identifications made and prior descriptions given by that witness do not have a hearsay purpose. In his influential article, Evidence of Past Identification, [1977 Crim. L.R. 268]…Professor Libling explains the admissibility of the out-of-court statements where the witness makes an in-court identification in this way, at pp. 271-72:

There is no hearsay problem with this kind of evidence. It is not admitted to prove the truth of the earlier identification, but to add cogency to the identification performed in court. As a general rule, a witness is not permitted to testify as to his own previous consistent statements because they add nothing to the in-court testimony. But evidence of previous identification strengthens the value of the identification in court by showing that the witness identified the accused before the sharpness of his recollection was dimmed by time. Furthermore it is important, in assessing the weight of the identification in Court, to know whether the identifying witness was able to identify the accused before he was aware that the accused was the person under suspicion by the police.

[39] I agree with Professor Libling’s analysis. When such evidence is tendered, the trier of fact is not asked to accept the out-of-court statements as independent evidence of identification, but is told to look to the entirety of the identification process before deciding what weight should be given to the identifying witness’s testimony. In this respect, evidence that the witness previously gave a description which matched the accused or previously selected the accused in a line-up serves no different evidentiary purpose than would evidence showing that the identifying witness had an ideal vantage point from which to observe the perpetrator of the offence. Both are factors which will assist in weighing the witness’s in-court testimony.

[41] The second situation in which out-of-court statements of identification have been admitted arises where the identifying witness is unable to identify the accused at trial, but can testify that he or she previously gave an accurate description or made an accurate identification. In these circumstances, the identifying witness may testify to what he or she said or did on those earlier occasions and those who heard the description given by the witness or witnessed the identification made by the witness may give evidence of what the witness said or did.

[159] The appellant acknowledges (and the Crown agrees) that the circumstances of the case at bar engage the first situation contemplated in Tat. Baldivia identified the appellant as the perpetrator in her preliminary inquiry evidence which was admitted at trial. I do not understand the appellant to contest the proposition that the admission of Baldivia’s preliminary inquiry evidence at trial was the equivalent of an in-court identification.

[168] In my view, it is sufficient in this case to hold, as I do, that Fuste’s evidence concerning Baldivia’s out-of-court identification of the appellant as the shooter was not admissible in re-examination.

[169] It is black-letter law that questions permitted as of right on re-examination must relate to matters arising out of cross-examination which deal with new matters, or with matters raised in examination-in-chief which require explanation given the questions posed and answers given in cross-examination: R. v. Evans, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 629 at 644, 1993 CanLII 102. As Watt J.A. noted in R. v. Candir, 2009 ONCA 915 at para. 148

It is fundamental that the permissible scope of re-examination is linked to its purpose and the subject-matter on which the witness has been crossexamined. The purpose of re-examination is largely rehabilitative and explanatory. The witness is afforded the opportunity, under questioning by the examiner who called the witness in the first place, to explain, clarify or qualify answers given in cross-examination that are considered damaging to the examiner’s case. The examiner has no right to introduce new subjects in re-examination, topics that should have been covered, if at all, in examination in-chief of the witness. A trial judge has a discretion, however, to grant leave to the party calling a witness to introduce new subjects in re-examination, but must afford the opposing party the right of further cross-examination on the new facts: R. v. Moore (1984), 15 C.C.C. (3d) 541 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 568.

[Emphasis added.]

[170] As had been agreed, Fuste was cross-examined on what Baldivia had told her about how the shooter arrived at the scene. She said Baldivia told her that the shooter was in a black SUV. If Fuste’s evidence on this point was accepted, it highlighted an obvious inconsistency in Baldivia’s account as she testified at the preliminary inquiry that the shooter fled on foot. The cross-examination of Fuste did not raise the issue of whether Baldivia told her the identity of the shooter, nor was it put to Fuste that Baldivia identified someone other than the appellant as the shooter

[171] It was open to the Crown to re-examine Fuste, as it did, for the purposes of eliciting evidence from her that she may have misunderstood what Baldivia told her about how the shooter arrived at the scene. But nothing in the further crossexamination opened the door for the Crown to re-examine Fuste on what Baldivia told her about the identity of the shooter. Baldivia’s identification of the appellant as the shooter was an entirely new matter raised for the first time in the re-examination of Fuste.

[172] While trial judges have a discretion to exercise in determining whether to permit proposed re-examination, what occurred here was not the product of an exercise of discretion. The Crown did not ask for a ruling on whether the proposed question—“what was the name?”—fell within the proper scope of re-examination, and the judge did not exercise his discretion in allowing the question to be asked. In the result, the admissibility of this evidence in re-examination does not attract a deferential standard of review.

[173] In my respectful view, the judge erred in law in permitting the Crown to elicit this evidence in re-examination. The error was not harmless. The evidence went to the central issue in the case and was the last significant piece of evidence the jury heard. Permitting the elicitation of this evidence in re-examination permitted the Crown to present its case in a piecemeal fashion.

[174] I am satisfied that the appellant was significantly and unfairly prejudiced as a result of the admission of this evidence in re-examination. It is apparent to me that the appellant’s trial counsel was caught flat-footed by the elicitation of this evidence in re-examination….

[175] Further, the Crown used this evidence in its closing address. Specifically, the Crown reminded the jury that Fuste mistakenly attributed to Baldivia in an out-ofcourt statement that “Alvaro” attended at the scene of the offence in a black SUV.

[177] Given my conclusion that the evidence elicited by the Crown in the re-examination of Fuste was improperly admitted, I find it unnecessary to address either the admissibility of Baldivia’s prior consistent statements or the obligation of the trial judge, in the main charge or in response to the jury’s second question, to instruct the jury on the limited use they were permitted to make of those statements.

[195] Taking all of these considerations into account, I have not been persuaded that this is an appropriate case for application of the curative proviso.

IV. Conclusion

[196] For the foregoing reasons, I would allow the appeal and order a new trial.

Also on the Blog

The Defence Toolkit – October 5, 2024: The Principled Exception

This week's top three summaries: R v Charles, 2024 SCC 29: #principled exception, R v R.A., 2024 ONCA 696: #spontaneous utterance, and R v DPT, 2024...

The Defence Toolkit – September 20, 2024: Crying Out

This week's top three summaries: R v Viau, 2024 ABCA 291: s271 #crying out, R v Stettner, 2024 SKCA 88: extrinsic #misconduct, and R v Brazil, 2024...

The Defence Toolkit – September 14, 2024: “Measuring Force in Self-Defence”

This week's top three summaries: R v CD, 2024 NLCA 22: self #defence force, R v Jenkins, 2024 ONCA 533: police lay #opinion, and R v Borhot, 2024...

About Us

Working through your complex trial materials

Our lawyers have been litigating criminal trials and appeals for over 16 years in courtrooms throughout Canada. We can be of assistance to your practice. Whether you are looking for an appeal referral or some help with a complex written argument, our firm may be able to help. Our firm provides the following services available to other lawyers for referrals or contract work:

  1. Criminal Appeals
  2. Complex Criminal Litigation
  3. Ghostwriting Criminal Legal Briefs

Please review the rest of the website to see if our services are right for you.

Pawel Milczarek, Appellate Lawyer in Calgary, AB.

Written By Pawel Milczarek

Pawel is a partner at Sitar & Milczarek. When he’s not litigating he writes the Defence Toolkit blog.

Related Posts

The Defence Toolkit – September 30, 2023 – “Ex Parte”

The Defence Toolkit – September 30, 2023 – “Ex Parte”

This week's top three summaries: R v  MC, 2023 ONCA 611: right to #present, R v JDC, 2023 ABCA 255: s.715.1 #memory, and R v Harasiuk, 2023 ONCA 594: joint submission #sentencing R v MC, 2023 ONCA 611 [September 11, 2023] Right to be Present at Trial: Stage 2 O'Connor...