R. v. Ross (E.F.), (1997) 30 O.T.C. 264 (GD)

• Judge: Weekes, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: March 03, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1997), 30 O.T.C. 264 (GD)

R. v. Ross (E.F.) (1997), 30 O.T.C. 264 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] O.T.C. TBEd. JN.093

Her Majesty The Queen v. Eric Fitzgerald Ross

(Barrie Court File No. 94G-1348)

Indexed As: R. v. Ross (E.F.)

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Bracebridge

Weekes, J.

March 3, 1997.

Summary:

The accused was charged with first degree murder in connection with the killings of three people. A voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of similar fact evidence arising from an attack by the accused on a woman and her son. The accused was arrested at the scene of that attack. The Crown argued that the similar fact evidence was relevant to the identity of the killer and the intent to kill and that it was an essential part of the narrative.

The Ontario Court (General Division) ruled that the proposed similar fact evidence was inadmissible where its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. Identity was no longer in issue as the accused had pleaded guilty to manslaughter in each killing. There was no probative value to the similarity of the attacks on the issue of intent and the details of the second attack were not a necessary part of the narrative.

Editor's Note: See the previous case reported in this volume for another decision involving this accused.

Criminal Law - Topic 5213

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - When admissible - See paragraphs 1 to 15.

Criminal Law - Topic 5214.2

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - To prove intention - See paragraphs 10 to 11.

Evidence - Topic 1255

Relevant facts - Relevance and materiality - Similar acts - To prove intent or guilty knowledge - See paragraphs 10 to 11.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 14].

Counsel:

Michael Martin and Michael Minns, for the Crown;

John L. Hill, for the accused.

This matter was heard in Bracebridge, Ontario, on January 13 to 17, 20 to 24, 27 to 29, and February 3 to 7, 10 to 13, 1997, before Weekes, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who released the following judgment on March 3, 1997.