R. v. Evans, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 653 (1993)

Supreme Court of Canada

Docket Number: 22592

Linked as:

Extract

R. v. Evans, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 653 (1993)

R. v. Evans, [1993] 3 S.C.R.

653

Clive Douglas Evans Appellant v.

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

Indexed as: R. v. Evans

File No.: 22592.

1993: March 24; 1993: October 21.

Present: L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta

Evidence -- Admissibility -- Hearsay -- Admissions -- Purchaser of getaway car used in robbery making certain statements to vendors -- Statements indicating that purchaser was the accused -- Whether statements hearsay -- If so, whether statements admissible as admissions of the accused -- Appropriate procedure to be followed in determining whether statements were made by accused -- Whether trial judge erred in use of statements -- If so, whether error resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice.

The appellant and a co-accused were charged with robbery and attempted murder. Two armed men had robbed Brink's security guards as they were making a collection from a store in a mall, seriously wounding one of them. Witnesses were able to identify one of the robbers as the co-accused. The other robber was not identified. Outside the store, the robbers were pursued by another Brink's guard, and then got into a waiting car, which was driven by a third person. The getaway car had been purchased two days earlier from a married couple. A man who matched the appellant's physical and facial description had made two visits to their house before actually purchasing the car. The purchaser refused to give his name or complete a bill of sale and asked to borrow the couple's licence plate. Neither the husband nor the wife was able to make a positive photographic or dock identification. At trial the husband said that the appellant looked familiar, while his wife said he looked "vaguely familiar". Both testified that the man who bought the car told them that he worked in chain-link fencing. The wife testified that the man said he had big dogs. The husband testified that the man said his dog was going to have pups. The admissibility of these statements of the purchaser is in question in this appeal. Sub...

See the full content of this document