R. v. J.E.M., (1994) 136 N.S.R.(2d) 47 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Gibson, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: September 01, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1994), 136 N.S.R.(2d) 47 (ProvCt)

R. v. J.E.M. (1994), 136 N.S.R.(2d) 47 (ProvCt);

  388 A.P.R. 47

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen v. J.E.M.

(430878)

Indexed As: R. v. J.E.M.

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Gibson, P.C.J.

September 20, 1994.

Summary:

The accused was charged with a sexual offence. The Crown moved to admit certain evidence, alleged to be similar fact evidence, which was presented in the course of a voir dire.

The Nova Scotia Provincial Court refused to admit the evidence.

Criminal Law - Topic 5213

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - When admissible - The accused was charged with a sexual offence involving D.M. when she was 19 and 20 years old - The accused had previously pleaded guilty to a sexual assault against T.D. when she was between 8 and 10 years old - The Crown sought to admit T.D.'s evidence as similar fact evidence, submitting that it was rel­evant to the credibility and corroboration of D.M.'s evidence - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court held that the evidence had less probative weight on the issues of credibility and corroboration than it would have had if D.M. was a young child - The court refused to admit the evidence, where its probative value did not outweigh its potential prejudicial effect.

Criminal Law - Topic 5213

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - When admissible - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court stated that the issue of the admissi­bility of similar fact evidence should be assessed in judge alone trials in the same manner as if it were sitting with a jury - See paragraph 13.

Evidence - Topic 1256

Relevant facts - Relevance and materiality - Similar acts - To prove criminal conduct - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 5213 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. C.R.B., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 717; 107 N.R. 241; 109 A.R. 81; 76 C.R.(3d) 1; [1990] 3 W.W.R. 385; 73 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 1, consd. [para. 5].

R. v. M.H.C., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 763; 123 N.R. 63; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 4 C.R.(4th) 1, consd. [para. 5].

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Board­man, [1975] A.C. 421 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Robertson, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 918; 75 N.R. 6; 20 O.A.C. 200; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 481, consd. [para. 7].

R. v. L.E.D., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 111; 97 N.R. 321; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 142; 71 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 12].

Counsel:

D. Smith, for the prosecution;

B. Newton, for the defendant.

This motion was heard on September 1, 1994, at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, before Gibson, P.C.J., of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on September 20, 1994.