Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Charlie Papa Kilo > Evidence > Flashcards

Evidence Flashcards

1
Q

Regarding the burden of proof, on which side does this lay?

A

The prosecution

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What about the evidential burden?

A

Once the basic elements of an offence have been proved, it is up to the defence to point to some evidence that suggests an explanation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the standard of proof when it lies with the prosecution?

A

Beyond reasonable doubt

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the standard of proof when an evidential burden lies with the defence?

A

Balance of probabilities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Explain R v Wanhalla and how it relates to beyond reasonable doubt

A

This relates to there being a very high standard of proof which is met only when the accused is sure of being guilty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Define what constitutes a ‘reasonable doubt’

A

An honest and reasonable uncertainty left in one’s mind about the guilt of the accused after one has given careful and impartial consideration to all of the evidence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is the Wanhalla principle?

A
  • The rationale of proof, namely the presumption of innocence
  • The fact that it is not enough for the Crown to convince the fact finder of probable guilt
  • The description of what a reasonable doubt is
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’?

A

A very high standard of proof which the Crown will have met only if, at the end of the case, the jury is SURE that the defendant is guilty.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is ‘the balance of probabilities’ and which side does this burden of proof lie with?

A

It lies with the defence.

The ‘balance of probabilities’ is simply, ‘It is more probable than not’.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Which sections of the Evidence Act reference corroboration and what should a judge do if they are of the opinion uncorroborated evidence may be unreliable?

A

S121 and 122 - the judge may warn the jury of the need for caution

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is veracity?

A

Disposition to refrain from lying

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is propensity?

A

The tendancy to act in a particular way or to have a particular state of mind, being evidence of acts, omissions, events or circumstances with which a person is alleged to have been involved

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Which sections control evidence of propensity?

A

S40-43

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Describe the general rule about propensity evidence

A

A party may offer propensity evidence about ANY PERSON, however -
It may only be offered in accordance with S41-43; and -
S44 - in sexual cases

(Also refer S7 - relevance and S8 - general exclusion)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Why would a defendant offer evidence of disreputable conduct in relation to propensity?

A

As a tactical reason eg, the burglar being tried for sexual offending who has never sexually offended

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Which section refers to offering evidence of a good propensity and what would the object be?

A

S41 - by offering evidence of propensity to act in a good fashion it opens the door to rebut evidence and prevents the jury from forming the wrong impression

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

List three things a judge must do when the prosecution offers propensity evidence about a defendant.

A

They must:

  1. IDENTIFY the relevance of the evidence,
  2. OUTLINE the competing position of the parties.
  3. WARN the jury against illegitimate reasoning processes.
18
Q

What is probative value?

A

How strongly and centrally the evidence assists in proving or disproving issues in a case.

19
Q

Describe how the probative value of prejudicial evidence would allow it to be admissible in court

A

S43 - the probative value in relation to an issue in the proceeding which outweighs the risk that the evidence may have an unfairly prejudicial effect on the defendant.

  • All probative evidence WILL BE PREJUDICIAL; the test is concerned with illegitimate prejudice.
  • The onus is on the prosecution to satisfy the court that the probative value outweighs the risk that the evidence may have an unfairly prejudicial effect on the defendant.
20
Q

List how probative value is assessed.

FOR MENSA

A

FOR MENSA = Frequency/cOnnected/similaRity/

nuMber/pEople/collusioN/SimilAr

43(3)(a) - the Frequency of acts demonstrating the defendant’s propensity increases the probative value of the evidence.

43(3)(b) - how closely cOnnected in time are the propensity acts to the current alleged offending.

43(4)(c) - the similaRity between previous acts and those currently alleged.

43(4)(d) - the nuMber of pEople making allegations against the defendant.

43(3)(e) - whether allegations may be the result of collusioN or suggestibility.

43(3)(f) - do the acts share SimilAr unusual features?

21
Q

S44 - evidence of sexual experience in complaints in sexual cases

A

The permission of the judge is required before any evidence may be given or questions put to a complainant regarding his or her sexual experience with anyone other than the defendant

22
Q

What is hearsay?

A

A statement made by a person OTHER THAN A WITNESS, and is offered in evidence at the proceeding to PROVE THE TRUTH OF ITS CONTENTS.

23
Q

What is a statement?

A
  • A spoken or written assertion by a person of any matter

- Non verbal conduct of a person that is intended by that person as an assertion of any matter

24
Q

Is an unintended assertion by a witness a statement?

A

No. The definition of a statement does not include a statement or non-verbal conduct that is not intended to be an assertion.

25
Q

Are out-of-court statements by a witness who is available to be cross examined excluded?

A

No if the witness is available to be cross examined.

26
Q

What is the focus of the hearsay rule?

A

The purpose for which the evidence is offered rather than just the fact that the statement was made out-of-court.

27
Q

Would a statement offered to show merely that the statement was made be subject to the hearsay rule?

A

No.

28
Q

What are the main exceptions to the hearsay rule? (S18)

A

The circumstances relating to the statement provide reasonable assurance that the statement is reliable; and either -

(i) the maker of the statement is unavailable as a witness; or -
(ii) the judge considers that undue expense or delay would be caused if the maker of the statement were required to be a witness

(This section is subject to S20 and 22)

29
Q

What are the two criteria for hearsay being admissible?

A
  1. Reliability.

2. Unavailability.

30
Q

Outline the rationale of the hearsay rule?

A
  • The lack of reliability of hearsay evidence.
  • Where the witness is not called, there is no opportunity to cross examine them regarding its contents, the circumstances in which it was made etc.
  • The rule addresses the concern that juries cannot evaluate evidence properly without being able to see the demeanor of the person who made the statement in question.
  • There is a danger that witnesses will make mistakes about the meaning or content of statements made by other people.
31
Q

What is the reason for the hearsay rule’s existence?

A

To prevent attributing undeserved weight to evidence which cannot be adequately or properly tested.

32
Q

What is the focus of 18(1)(a)?

Hearsay admissible if …

A

The reliability of the hearsay statement itself, NOT the PERSON who intends to give the hearsay evidence.

It is a threshold test for admissibility. The reference to “reasonable assurance” of reliability means that the evidence must be reliable enough for the fact finder to consider it, and draw its own conclusions as to the weight to be placed on the evidence.

33
Q

Regarding S18(1), what CIRCUMSTANCES would have to exist for a hearsay statement to be considered reliable? (S16 - circumstances)

(NARKO)

A

Nature/Accuracy/veRacity/
maKing/cOntents

  • Nature - witnessed/oral/signed etc
  • Accuracy - Any circumstances that relate to the accuracy of the observation of the person
  • veRacity - Any circumstances that relate to the veracity of the person
  • maKing - The circumstances that relate to the making of the statement - physical environment/how long after the event the statement refers to/what the relationship was between the maker and the witness
  • cOntents - the contents of the statement
34
Q

What are some formats that a statement may take for it to be considered reliable?

A

Whether it is written, oral, signed, witnessed, first-hand

35
Q

List what is considered to be unavailable.

A
  • dead
  • outside NZ
  • unfit to be a witness due to age/mental condition etc
  • cannot with reasonable diligence be identified or found
  • not compellable
36
Q

List good reasons for not following a formal identification procedure (Section 45)

PICNIC-O

A

Part/sIngular/Change/
aNtIcipate/Chance/Offence

  • A refusal of the suspect to take Part in the procedure
  • The sIngular appearance of the suspect
  • A substantial Change in the appearance of the suspect after the alleged offence occurred and before it was practical to hold a formal procedure
  • No officer involved could reasonable aNticIpate that ID would be an issue at the trial of the defendant
  • ID had been made to police after a Chance meeting b/w victim and offender
  • ID made soon after Offence occurred and in course of officer’s initial investigation
37
Q

Which rule of evidence applies to S 46 - voice identification evidence?

Balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt?

A

Balance of probabilities

38
Q

If no formal procedure is followed for having completed a visual ID with a witness, what rule of evidence applies to make it admissible?

A

Beyond reasonable doubt

39
Q

What rule of evidence applies to voice ID to have it admitted as evidence?

A

Balance of probabilities

40
Q

What is the Woolmington principle?

A

The presumption of innocence

41
Q

Who does the burden of proof lie with?

A

The prosecution in relation to all the elements of the offence

42
Q

What is the exception to the Woolmington principle?

A

The defence of insanity - the defence must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant was insane at the time the offence was committed.

Charlie Papa Kilo (20 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions