Exceptions to H rule Flashcards
State of mind exception
n out of court statement expressing contemporaneous intention, belief, perception, or emotion may be admitted for the truth of its content
To be admissible, the state of mind must be relevant and the statement must be (1) made in a natural manner and (2) not under circumstances of suspicion: R. v. Cote, 2018 ONCA 870, at para. 22; R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40, at para. 168. Relevance is often the determinative factor to admissibility.
The relevancy analysis under the state of mind exception is twofold: First, the statement must be relevant to the declarant’s state of mind; Second, the declarant’s state of mind must be relevant to a material issue (intention, belief, perception, or emotion). The second step often involves a chain of logical reasoning: R. v. P.(R.), [1990] O.J. No. 3418 (Ont. H.C.), at paras. 9-10; R. v. Candir, 2009 ONCA 915, at para. 46-49
res gestae
R v Khan:
[A] spontaneous statement made under the stress or pressure of a dramatic or startling event and relating to such an occasion may be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. The stress or pressure of the act or event must be such that the possibility of concoction or deception can be safely discounted. The statement need not be made strictly contemporaneous to the occurrence so long as the stress or pressure created by it is ongoing and the statement is made before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent. The admissibility of such statements is dependent on the possibility of concoction or fabrication. Where the spontaneity of the statement is clear and the danger of fabrication is remote, the evidence should be received.
R. v. Carty, 2017 ONCA 770 at Para:
statement was made in circumstances where “the possibility of concoction or deception can safely be discounted.” Where, however, a trial judge determines that a statement was made when the stress or pressure of the act or event is “such that the possibility of concoction or deception can be safely discounted,” or “before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent,” then the presence of a motive to mislead becomes unimportant to admissibility. If one is so caught up in the event that, realistically, they are not capable of contriving, evidence that they may have a motive to contrive against another is immaterial.
Ante Mortem Statements/declarations
Dying declarations:
made by victims of crime who might have anticipated some violence by the accused, but who did not have a “settled, hopeless expectation of almost immediate death”
Evidence traditionally tendered through the categorical exceptions – narrow categories such as dying declarations and res gestae – were admitted based on the notion that the circumstances in which the words were uttered led to a sufficiently reliable statement.
Evidence traditionally tendered through the categorical exceptions – narrow categories such as dying declarations and res gestae – were admitted based on the notion that the circumstances in which the words were uttered led to a sufficiently reliable statement.
Some statements, such as statements about an abusive relationship with the accused, prior threats, or a prior conflict, may also be relevant to motive[ii] or animus. Where identity is in issue, motive can be relevant
Evidence of a prior conflict between the deceased and accused, may be relevant to the accused’s intention at the time of the killing and, for example, whether that killing was planned and deliberate: R. v. Candir, supra at para. 72; R. v. Blackman, 2008 SCC 37 at paras 31-32; R. v. Moo, 2009 ONCA 645 at para. 106, leave to appeal dismissed [2010] S.C.C.A. No. 152; R. v. Morehouse, 2008 ABCA 225 at paras 15-16 and 25.
