Relevance (Building Block of Admissibility)

Question 1

What Promotes rationale and efficient fact find, prevents jury distraction and avoids prolonged trials?

Answer 1

Relevance

Question 2

Evidence is _____ where it tends to make the existence (or non-existence) of a material fact more (or less) likely.

Answer 2

Relevant

Question 3

To be receivable does the relevant piece of evidence on its own be self-sufficient?

Answer 3

No, relevance does not equal sufficiency

Question 4

Relevance is a high threshold to meet?

Answer 4

No

Question 5

“When we speak of relevance, we are speaking of logical relevance –> Is there a logical relevance to a material fact to make it more/less likely?” - What case is this from?

Answer 5

R v Morris

Question 6

The Case Tano LOOVES to reference: it is a coherent theory of admissibility, and how Reasonable Reliability and Cultural Competence factor in the relevance

Answer 6

Mitchell v MNR

Question 7

“For one fact to be relevant to another, there must be a connection or nexus between the two which makes it possible to infer the existence of one from the existence of another.”

Answer 7

True - R v Cloutier and how it is distinguished from R v Morris

Question 8

Bad Character Evidence can be used for witnesses?

Answer 8

FALSE BCE only matters and is not allowed for the accused

Question 9

Case about accused shooting victim, who he thought has a gun –> and defence wanted to lead victims criminal record ?

Answer 9

R v Jackson, criminal record was not relevant because there was no logical connection (i.e accused did not not about this record)

Question 10

Key case for inductive reasoning

Answer 10

R v Munoz

Question 11

Starts with generalizations and finds evidence to come to that conclusion

Answer 11

Deductive Reasoning

Question 12

All Toyota’s are blue
James is driving a Toyota
Therefore it is Blue

Answer 12

Deductive Reasoning

Question 13

X is an out of court statement being led for its truth , therefore X is hearsay

Answer 13

DR

Question 14

The process of reasoning where experience, logic and observation are applied to the particulars of a case and an inference or conclusion is reached

Answer 14

IR

Question 15

What case said “the evidence of flight in a murder case is relevant in the issue of identity but not relevant on a measure of culpability”

Answer 15

R v Arcangioli –> The Arcangioli Rule

Question 16

True or False, after the fact conduct is inadmissible

Answer 16

False, after the fact conduct, is admissible, if it is a relevant fact and can logically lead to a conclusion being made.

Question 17

When assessing this, we are examining THE STRENGTH OF THE INFERENCE OR LOGICAL CONNECTION between the proposed evidence and a fact of consequence to the action or charge or defence

Answer 17

Probative value

Question 18

What test is concerned with the potential PE of the evidence?

Answer 18

R v Seaboyer