R. v. Sweitzer, (1982) 42 N.R. 550 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 23, 1982
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1982), 42 N.R. 550 (SCC);[1982] CarswellAlta 552;AZ-82111065;29 CR (3d) 97;37 AR 294;[1982] 1 SCR 949;42 NR 550;1982 CanLII 23 (SCC);68 CCC (2d) 193;[1982] 5 WWR 555;21 Alta LR (2d) 97;137 DLR (3d) 702;JE 82-658

R. v. Sweitzer (1982), 42 N.R. 550 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Sweitzer

Indexed As: R. v. Sweitzer

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer, JJ.

June 23, 1982

Summary:

The accused was convicted of rape before a judge and jury. The accused was charged with 15 offences relating to sexual assaults over four years. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ordered that the counts be severed in a judgment reported 24 A.R. 515, and the Crown proceeded on the earliest one, which led to the accused's conviction. The trial judge ruled that evidence regarding the other 14 offences was admissible against the accused on the ground that it was relevant, because the other incidents were similar, notwithstanding that there was no evidence linking the accused to 11 of them. The accused appealed. The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in a judgment reported 26 A.R. 208. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial and held inadmissible evidence respecting the 11 offences which could not be linked to the accused.

For a judgment respecting re-election by the accused, see 25 A.R. 267.

Criminal Law - Topic 5212

Evidence and witnesses - Relevancy - Similar acts - General - The Supreme Court of Canada held that evidence respecting similar offences to the one charged was inadmissible unless there was evidence linking the other offences to the accused.

Cases Noticed:

Makin v. The Attorney General of New South Wales, [1894] A.C. 57, appld. [para. 6].

Boardman v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1974] 3 All E.R. 887, appld. [para. 8].

R. v. Hurren, [1962] Crim. L.R. 771, refd. to. [para. 8].

Harris v. The Director of Public Prosecutions, [1952] A.C. 694, appld. [para. 9].

Thompson v. The, [1918] A.C. 21, refd. to. [para. 10].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hoffman, L.H., Similar Facts after Boardman, 91 L.Q. Rev. 193 [para. 8].

Sklar, Similar Fact Evidence - Catchwords and Cartwheels, [1977] McGill L.J. 60 [para. 8].

Smith, J.C., Comment on R. v. Hurren, [1962] Crim. L.R. 771 [para. 8].

Counsel:

Brian Devlin, for the appellant;

Bruce Duncan, for the respondent.

This case was heard on February 8, 1982, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, RITCHIE, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY, McINTYRE, CHOUINARD and LAMER, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On June 23, 1982, McINTYRE, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada: