R. v. K.G.B., (1993) 148 N.R. 241 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 25, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 148 N.R. 241 (SCC);EYB 1993-67493;[1993] 1 SCR 740;1993 CanLII 116 (SCC);19 CR (4th) 1;79 CCC (3d) 257;148 NR 241;[1993] CarswellOnt 76;JE 93-466;[1993] SCJ No 22 (QL);18 WCB (2d) 588;[1993] ACS no 22;61 OAC 1

R. v. K.G.B. (1993), 148 N.R. 241 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. K.G.B. (respondent)

(22351)

Indexed As: R. v. K.G.B.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ.

February 25, 1993.

Summary:

A youth was charged with second degree murder. Three companions gave videotaped statements to police that the youth admitted he stabbed the victim. At trial, the compan­ions recanted, claiming they lied in their statements. The trial judge stated that the recantations were false, but the prior incon­sistent statements were admissible only respecting the witnesses' credibility. Accord­ingly, the prior inconsistent statements, even though believed to be true by the trial judge, could not be used to prove the youth admit­ted the stabbing. The trial judge acquitted the youth where the remaining evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a judg­ment reported 49 O.A.C. 30, dismissed the appeal. The court stated that it was bound by the existing common law rule respecting the use of prior inconsistent statements by a witness. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The court reformed the rule on the use of prior incon­sistent statements; they were now admissible to prove the truth of the statement where certain tests respecting their reliability were met. It was for the trial judge to determine, on the basis of the reformed rule, whether the statements were admissible for the truth of their contents.

Courts - Topic 28

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial deci­sions - The common law - Modification or extension of common law rule - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the court had a duty to review common law rules, because they were best situated to assess the operation and possible de­fi­ciencies of common law rules in practical situations - Accordingly, where the ration­ale for the orthodox rule respecting limited use of prior inconsistent statements of a witness was undermined by societal changes, a reformed rule was clearly incremental when viewed in the context of the trend within evidence law towards greater admissibility and a correspondingly increased emphasis on the weight to be accorded admissible evidence - See para­graphs 53 to 58.

Courts - Topic 79

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial deci­sions - Prior decisions of same court - Supreme Court of Canada - The Supreme Court of Canada stated the guidelines respecting the exercise of its jurisdiction to overrule previous decisions - The guidelines were "(1) whether the rule or principle under consideration must be varied in order to avoid a Charter breach; (2) whether the rule or principle under consideration has been attenuated or un­dermined by other decisions of this or other appellate courts; (3) whether the rule or principle under consideration has cre­ated uncertainty or has become 'unduly and unnecessarily complex and technical'; and (4) whether the proposed change in the rule or principle is one which broadens the scope of criminal liability, or is otherwise unfavourable to the position of the accused." - See paragraph 62.

Evidence - Topic 4751

Witnesses - Examination - Prior incon­sistent statements - Use of - The Supreme Court of Canada reformed the common law rule that prior inconsistent statements of a witness were admissible only respect­ing credibility - The court stated that the traditional rule, as based on the hearsay rule, has been undermined by the court's decisions in R. v. Smith (A.L.) and R. v. Khan - Prior inconsistent statements of a witness other than the accused were ad­missible for the truth of their contents if the trial judge was satisfied on a voir dire, on a balance of probabilities, that the indicia of reliability were met - To be admissible the prior statement must, inter alia, have been made (1) under oath, sol­emn affirmation or declaration, with an explicit warning to the witness of possible prosecution if the witness lied; (2) the statement should be videotaped in its entirety; and (3) the witness must be available for cross-examination - Noncompliance with the three factors did not preclude substantive admissibility if sufficient substitutes for reliability existed - See paragraphs 73 to 121.

Evidence - Topic 4751

Witnesses - Examination - Prior incon­sistent statements - Use of - A youth was charged with murder - Three companions gave videotaped statements to police that the youth admitted he stabbed the victim - At trial, the companions recanted, claiming they lied previously - The trial judge disbelieved the recantations, but the prior inconsistent statements were admissible only respecting the witnesses' credibility and could not be used to prove the youth admitted the stabbing - The trial judge acquitted the youth, where the remaining evidence was insufficient to support a conviction - The Supreme Court of Canada reformed the rule respecting use of prior inconsistent statements, stating when they could be used to prove the truth of their contents - The court ordered a new trial, leaving it to the trial judge to deter­mine whether the statements met the test for admission to prove the truth of their contents.

Evidence - Topic 4751

Witnesses - Examination - Prior incon­sistent statements - Use of - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that prior incon­sistent statements of a witness other than the accused "will only be admissible if they would have been admissible as the witness' sole testimony. That is, if the witness could not have made the statement at trial during his or her examination-in-chief or cross-examination, for whatever reason, it cannot be made admissible through the back door, as it were, under the reformed prior inconsistent statement rule." - The court provided examples of types of statements that would and would not be admissible for the truth of their contents - See paragraphs 74 to 79.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. McInroy and Rouse, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 588; 23 N.R. 589; 89 D.L.R.(3d) 609; 42 C.C.C.(2d) 481; [1978] 6 W.W.R. 585, refd to. [para. 11].

Wright v. Beckett (1833), 1 M. & Rob. 414; 174 E.R. 143, refd to. [para. 15].

Attorney General v. Hitchcock (1847), 16 L.J. Ex. 259, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Duckworth (1916), 26 C.C.C. 314 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Deacon, [1947] S.C.R. 531, not appld. [para. 17].

R. v. Mannion, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 272; 69 N.R. 189; 75 A.R. 16; 28 C.C.C.(3d) 544; 31 D.L.R.(4th) 712, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81; 28 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Kuldip, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 618; 114 N.R. 248; 43 O.A.C. 340, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Smith (A.L.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321, appld. [para. 26].

R. v. Dubois, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350; 62 N.R. 50; 66 A.R. 202; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 513; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 193; 41 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 92; 79 C.R.(3d) 1, appld. [para. 34].

Paramore v. State (1969), 229 So.2d 855, refd to. [para. 39].

State v. Saporen (1939), 285 N.W. 898, refd to. [para. 42].

California v. Green (1970), 399 U.S. 149, refd to. [para. 43].

Myers v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1965] A.C. 1001 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 54].

Watkins v. Olafson et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 750; 100 N.R. 161; 61 Man.R.(2d) 81; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 577; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 481; 39 B.C.L.R.(2d) 294; 50 C.C.L.T. 101, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C. 125; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 385; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 1 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 2 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833; 90 N.R. 321; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Potvin, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 525; 93 N.R. 42; 21 Q.A.C. 258; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Williams (1985), 7 O.A.C. 241; 50 O.R.(2d) 321; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 356, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Broyles, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 595; 131 N.R. 118; 120 A.R. 189; 8 W.A.C. 189; 8 C.R.R.(2d) 274; [1992] 1 W.W.R. 289; 9 C.R.(4th) 1; 84 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 308, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 78].

Omychund v. Barker (1744), 1 Atk. 21; 26 E.R. 15, refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Truscott, [1967] S.C.R. 309; [1967] 2 C.C.C. 285; 62 D.L.R.(2d) 545, refd to. [para. 87].

Ares v. Venner, [1970] S.C.R. 608; 14 D.L.R.(3d) 4; 73 W.W.R.(N.S.) 347, refd to. [para. 107].

Khan v. College of Physicians and Sur­geons (Ont.) (1992), 57 O.A.C. 115; 9 O.R.(3d) 641 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 108].

R. v. Ibrahim, [1914] A.C. 599 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Prosko (1922), 63 S.C.R. 226, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Horvath, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 376; 25 N.R. 537; 93 D.L.R.(3d) 1; 44 C.C.C.(2d) 385, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Rothman, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 640; 35 N.R. 485; 121 D.L.R.(3d) 578; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 30, refd to. [para. 118].

R. v. Piché, [1971] S.C.R. 23; 74 W.W.R.(N.S.) 674; 111 D.L.R.(3d) 700, refd to. [para. 119].

R. v. Boisjoly, [1972] S.C.R. 42; 5 C.C.C.(2d) 309; 23 D.L.R.(3d) 190, refd to. [para. 148].

R. v. Coulombe, [1976] C.A. 327, refd to. [para. 150].

R. v. Moran (1987), 21 O.A.C. 257; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 156].

R. v. L.S.L. (1991), 89 Sask.R. 267 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 156].

R. v. Gravelle (1952), 103 C.C.C. 250 (Ont. Mag. Ct.), refd to. [para. 157].

R. v. MacGillivray (1971), 3 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 227 (P.E.I. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 157].

R. v. Feger (1989), 36 Q.A.C. 26 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 157].

R. v. Jodi J. (1988), 29 O.A.C. 104; 65 C.R.(3d) 371; 43 C.C.C.(3d) 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 157].

R. v. Stapleton (1982), 66 C.C.C.(2d) 231 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 157].

R. v. Howard, [1972] 3 O.R. 119; 7 C.C.C.(2d) 211 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 157].

Lessard v. R., [1965] Que. Q.B. 631, refd to. [para. 157].

R. v. Sevick (1930), 54 C.C.C. 92 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 157].

R. v. Edwards (1986), 47 Sask.R. 303 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 157].

R. v. Verma (1980), 28 A.R. 233; 9 M.V.R. 150 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 157].

R. v. Lindstrom (1977), 33 N.S.R.(2d) 369; 57 A.P.R. 369 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 157].

R. v. Martin (1969), 12 Crim. L.Q. 201 (B.C. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 157].

R. v. Snider (1953), 17 C.R. 136 (Ont. Mag. Ct.), refd to. [para. 157].

Di Carlo v. United States (1925), 6 F.2d 364 (2nd Cir.), refd to. [para. 167].

Gibbons v. State (1982), 286 S.E.2d 717 (Ga. S.C), refd to. [para. 176].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 183].

R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 577; 90 N.R. 173; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 513; 67 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 183].

R. v. Pickett (1975), 28 C.C.C.(2d) 297 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 183].

R. v. Vézeau, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 277; 8 N.R. 235; 66 D.L.R.(3d) 418, refd to. [para. 199].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 9 [para. 5].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7, sect. 11(d) [para. 63]; sect. 13 [para. 27]; sect. 24(2) [para. 78].

Civil Evidence Act 1968 (U.K.), c. 64, sect. 3(1)(a) [para. 50].

Common Law Procedure Act, 1854 (U.K.), 17 & 18 Vict., c. 125, sect. 22 [para. 15].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 131(3), sect. 134(2) [para. 149]; sect. 137 [para. 88]; sect. 139(2), sect. 140(1) [para. 154]; sect. 715 [para. 63].

Criminal Law Amendment Act, S.C. 1974-75-76, c. 93, sect. 6 [para. 149].

Criminal Law Amendment Act, S.C. 1985, c. 19, sect. 17 [para. 149].

Federal Rules of Evidence, 28 U.S.C. App., rule 801(d)(1)(A) [paras. 48, 143].

Young Offenders Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Y-1, sect. 56(2)(c), sect. 56(2)(d) [para. 101].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Federal/Provincial Task Force on Uniform Rules of Evidence (1982), p. 315 [para. 33].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Report on Evidence (1975), generally [para. 33]; p. 69 [para. 54].

Delisle, Ronald Joseph, Evidence: Prin­ciples and Problems (2nd Ed. 1989), p. 247 [para. 31].

Dugdale, D.F., Against oath-taking, [1985] N.Z.L.J. 404, generally [para. 36].

Graham, Michael H., Employing Incon­sistent Statements for Impeachment and as Substantive Evidence: A Critical Review and Proposed Amendments of Federal Rules of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A), 613 and 607 (1977), 75 Mich. L. Rev. 1565, p. 1577, note 40 [para. 145].

Grant, Alan, Videotaping Police Question­ing: A Canadian Experiment, [1987] Crim. L.R. 375, p. 379 [para. 38].

Heaton-Armstrong, Anthony, and David Wolchover, Recording Witness State­ments, [1992] Crim. L.R. 160, p. 169 [para. 170].

Laskin, Bora, The Role and Functions of Final Appellate Courts: The Supreme Court of Canada (1975), 53 Can. Bar Rev. 469, pp. 478, 479 [para. 55].

McCormick on Evidence (4th Ed. 1992), vol. 2, pp. 117, 118 [para. 32]; 120 [para. 40].

Miller, Joyce, The Audio-visual Taping of Police Interviews with Suspects and Accused Persons by Halton Regional Police Force: An Evaluation (1988), pp. 3, 13, 23 [para. 39].

Morden, John Wilson, Evidence -- Proof of Own Witness's Prior Inconsistent Statement Where Adverse -- Section 24, Evidence Act (Ont.) (1962), 40 Can. Bar Rev. 96, p. 103 [paras. 32, 40].

Morgan, Edmund M., Hearsay Dangers and the Application of the Hearsay Con­cept (1948), 62 Harv. L. Rev. 177, p. 193 [para. 42].

Ontario, Law Reform Commission, Report on the Law of Evidence (1976), gen­erally [para. 46].

Schiff, Stanley, The Previous Inconsistent Statement of Opponent's Witness (1986), 36 U.T.L.J. 440, p. 451 [para. 31].

Stuesser, Lee, Admitting Prior Inconsistent Statements For Their Truth (1992), 71 Can. Bar Rev. 48, pp. 53 [paras. 32, 36]; 54 [para. 36]; 60 [para. 41].

United States, Senate Report No. 93-1277, [1974] U.S. Cong. & Adm. News 7051, p. 7062 [para. 144].

Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourn Rev. 1970), vol. 3A, p. 966, § 1018 [para. 40].

Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourn Rev. 1974), vol. 5, p. 253, § 1421 [para. 106].

Counsel:

S. Casey Hill and Scott C. Hutchison, for the appellant;

Keith E. Wright and Mary E. Misener, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

The Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Keith E. Wright, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This case was heard on October 8, 1992, before Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On February 25, 1993, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Lamer, C.J.C. (Sopinka, Gonthier, Mc­Lachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 123;

Cory, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, J., concur­ring) - see paragraphs 124 to 202.