R. v. Strauss (R.J.), (2004) 260 Sask.R. 33 (PC)

• Judge: Carter, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: December 17, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2004), 260 Sask.R. 33 (PC);2004 SKPC 146

R. v. Strauss (R.J.) (2004), 260 Sask.R. 33 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] Sask.R. TBEd. JA.077

Her Majesty the Queen v. Richard James Strauss

(Information No. 24093182; 2004 SKPC 146)

Indexed As: R. v. Strauss (R.J.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Carter, P.C.J.

December 17, 2004.

Summary:

The complainant alleged an assault, but testified at trial that she could not remember what happened because of how drunk she was. The Crown sought to admit three statements which the complainant had made to a police officer within three hours after the alleged assault.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that there were insufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness and the statements were inadmissible.

Evidence - Topic 1527

Hearsay rule - Hearsay rule exceptions and exclusions - Where admission of hearsay necessary and evidence reliable - The complainant alleged an assault, but testified at trial that she could not remember what happened because of how drunk she was - The Crown sought to admit three statements (two oral and one written), which the complainant made to a police officer within three hours after the alleged assault - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that there were insufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness and the statements were inadmissible - The oral statements were not videotaped or recorded and were based on the officer's recollection after reviewing her notes - The written statement was the product of the officer writing everything down as best she could, but admitting that she did not get every word - At no time was the complainant asked whether what she was saying was the truth - Nor was she cautioned that she could be prosecuted for misleading the police if her statements were not true - The evidence also disagreed with respect to whether the complainant was sober when she gave the statements.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161; 147 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 3].

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

R. v. K.G.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740; 148 N.R. 241; 61 O.A.C. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Oakley (P.) (2001), 199 N.S.R.(2d) 384; 623 A.P.R. 384; 2001 NSPC 36, dist. [para. 9].

Counsel:

J. Syrnick, for the Crown;

G. Bendig, for the accused.

This voir dire was heard before Carter, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on December 17, 2004.