R. v. J.-L.J. (2000), 261 N.R. 111 (SCC)
MLB Headnote and full text
French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Temp. Cite: [2000] N.R. TBEd. NO.019
Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. J.-L.J. (respondent)
(26830; 2000 SCC 51)
Indexed As: R. v. J.-L.J.
Supreme Court of Canada
L’Heureux-Dubé, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ.
November 9, 2000.
Summary:
The accused was charged with sexual offences against two young boys. An expert witness opined that the offences were committed by a person possessing a highly distinct personality disorder and he tendered expert psychiatric evidence to show that the accused’s personality was incompatible with any predisposition to commit such offences. Following a voir dire, the trial judge excluded the evidence and convicted the accused. The accused appealed.
The Quebec Court of Appeal, Robert, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported 130 C.C.C.(3d) 541, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the ground that the expert evidence should have been admitted. The Crown appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the conviction. The trial judge was correct to exclude the evidence.
Criminal Law – Topic 686
Sexual offences – Evidence – General – [See
Criminal Law – Topic 5204.3
].
Criminal Law – Topic 5204.3
Evidence and witnesses – General – Admissibility – Evidence of disposition or propensity of accused – The accused was charged with sexual offences (including sodomy) against two young boys – An expert opined that sodomy of young children was committed by persons having a highly distinct personality disorder and that his testing of the accused (including a penile plethysmograph) convinced him that the accused lacked the personality to be predisposed to commit such an offence – The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the trial judge’s exclusion of the expert evidence – There was no standard profile of persons who sodomized young boys – Accordingly, the expert’s opinion that the accused’s personality was incompatible with characteristics that were “frequently” or “normally” present in such offenders did not exclude the accused from the group of persons who could commit such an offence – Although the accused “passed” the penile plethysmograph (no sexual deviance), this test was not shown to be sufficiently reliable to identify or exclude any person from being a perpetrator of such offences.
Criminal Law – Topic 5449
Evidence and witnesses – Testimony respecting the accused – Character of accused -General – [See
Criminal Law – Topic 5204.3
].
Evidence – Topic 7010.1
Opinion evidence – Expert evidence – General – Evidence of new medical or scientific doctrines – The Supreme Court of Canada held that an expert failed to establish the reliability of a “penile plethysmograph” as a forensic tool to identify or exclude persons from being a member of a distinct group of persons with a propensity to sodomize young boys – As to the acceptance of expert evidence in an area of novel science, the court stated that “a case-by-case evaluation of novel science is necessary in light of the changing nature of our scientific knowledge” – See paragraph 34.
Evidence – Topic 7053
Opinion evidence – Expert evidence – Particular matters – Psychiatric or psychological evidence – [See
Criminal Law – Topic 5204.3
].
Evidence – Topic 7154
Opinion evidence – Prohibited opinions – Re basic or ultimate issue to be decided – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the purpose of expert evidence was to assist the trier of fact by providing special knowledge that the ordinary person would not know – The expert was not a substitute for the trier of fact – Special scrutiny was required when the expert’s evidence came close to being an opinion on the ultimate issue to be decided – See paragraphs 37, 56.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241, appld. [para. 16].
R. v. Garfinkle (1992), 15 C.R.(4th) 254 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].
R. v. Béland and Phillips, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 398; 79 N.R. 263; 9 Q.A.C. 293, refd to. [para. 26].
R. v. McIntosh (O.) and McCarthy (P.) (1997), 102 O.A.C. 210; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].
R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 29].
Kelliher (Village) v. Smith, [1931] S.C.R. 672, refd to. [para. 30].
R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 50, refd to. [para. 30].
R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852; 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 30].
R. v. McMillan (1975), 23 C.C.C.(2d) 160 (Ont. C.A.), affd. [1977] 2 S.C.R. 824; 15 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 31].
R. v. Lupien, [1970] S.C.R. 263, refd to. [para. 31].
R. v. Robertson (1975), 21 C.C.C.(2d) 385 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].
Frye v. United States (1923), 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir.), refd to. [para. 33].
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1993), 509 U.S. 579 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 33].
Protection de la jeunesse – 539, [1992] R.J.Q. 1144, refd to. [para. 35].
R. v. Blondin, [1996] Q.J. No. 3605 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 35].
People v. John W. (1986), 185 Cal. App.3d 801 (Cal. C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].
Gentry v. State (1994), 443 S.E.2d 667 (Ga. App.), refd to. [para. 35].
United States v. Powers (1995), 59 F.3d 1460 (4th Cir.), refd to. [para. 35].
State v. Spencer (1995), 459 S.E.2d 812 (N.C. App.), refd to. [para. 35].
R. v. Pascoe (D.P.) (1996), 96 O.A.C. 337; 5 C.R.(5th) 341 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].
R. v. B.L., [1988] O.J. No. 2522 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 38].
R. v. J.R.G. (1998), 17 C.R.(5th) 399 (Ont. Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 38].
R. v. Taillefer (1995), 100 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].
R. v. S.C.B. (1997), 104 O.A.C. 81; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 530 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].
R. v. K.B. (1999), 176 N.S.R.(2d) 283; 538 A.P.R. 283 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].
R. v. Malboeuf (P.), [1997] O.A.C. Uned. 208 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied [1998] 3 S.C.R. vii; 236 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 42].
R. v. Perlett (J.) (1999), 96 O.T.C. 122 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 43].
R. v. J.T.S. (1996), 47 C.R.(4th) 240 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].
R. v. Dowd (J.T.) (1997), 193 N.B.R.(2d) 247; 493 A.P.R. 247; 120 C.C.C.(3d) 360 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].
Davie v. Magistrates of Edinburgh, [1953] S.C. 34, refd to. [para. 56].
R. v. Marquard, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 81; 66 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 60].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Barker, James G., and Howell, Robert J., The Plethysmograph: A Review of Recent Literature (1992), 20 Bull. Am. Acad. of Psychiatry & L. 13, generally [para. 35].
Delisle, R.J., The Admissibility of Expert Evidence: A New Caution Based on General Principles (1994), 29 C.R.(4th) 267, generally [para. 47].
Mewett, Alan W., Character as a Fact in Issue in Criminal Cases (1984-85), 27 Crim. L.Q. 29, pp. 35, 36 [para. 38].
Morin, L., and Boisclair, C., La preuve d’abus sexuel: allégations, déclarations et l’évaluation d’expert (1992), 23 R.D.U.S. 27, generally [para. 35].
Myers, John E.B., et al., Expert Testimony in Child Sexual Abuse Litigation (1989), 68 Neb. L. Rev. 1, pp. 134 to 135 [para. 35].
Paciocco, David M., and Stuesser, Lee, The Law of Evidence (1996), p. 19 [para. 47].
Counsel:
Carole Lebeuf and Stella Gabbino, for the appellant;
Pauline Bouchard and Sharon Sandiford, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Attorney General’s Prosecutor, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant;
Silver, Morena, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on December 10, 1999, before L’Heureux-Dubé, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On November 9, 2000, Binnie, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Supreme Court of Canada.
