R. v. Starr (R.D.) (2000), 258 N.R. 250 (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. SE.015
Robert Dennis Starr (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and The Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General for Ontario and the Attorney General of British Columbia (intervenors)
(26514; 2000 SCC 40)
Indexed As: R. v. Starr (R.D.)
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
September 29, 2000.
Summary:
The accused was convicted on two counts of first degree murder. He appealed both convictions.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal, Twaddle, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported at 123 Man.R.(2d) 292; 159 W.A.C. 292, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada, McLachlin, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Bastarache, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.
Criminal Law – Topic 4351
Procedure – Charge or directions – Jury or judge alone – Direction regarding burden of proof and reasonable doubt – The accused was convicted on two counts of first degree murder – He appealed on the ground, inter alia, of several errors in the jury charge, including the failure to correctly explain reasonable doubt – The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal – The error in the charge was that the jury was not told how a reasonable doubt was defined – The jury was not told that something more than probability was required in order to convict – The reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the wrong standard of proof raised a realistic possibility that the accused’s convictions constituted a miscarriage of justice – See paragraphs 230 to 244.
Criminal Law – Topic 5252
Evidence and witnesses – Identification – From photographs – Use of photos by police – The accused was convicted on two counts of first degree murder – He appealed on the ground, inter alia, that the trial judge allowed a police officer to testify that a witness identified the accused from a photograph – The witness was not questioned about it when she was on the stand – The appellate court held that, if the trial judge erred in allowing the testimony, his jury charge negated any harm – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the evidence was inadmissible and the cautionary instruction to the jury was insufficient to remedy the harm caused by the admission of the evidence – See paragraphs 218 to 229.
Criminal Law – Topic 5529
Evidence and witnesses – Testimony respecting the victim – Behaviour of victim -The accused was convicted on two counts of first degree murder – He appealed on the ground, inter alia, that the trial judge erred in allowing the testimony of one witness as to what the deceased said to her – The Crown argued that the purpose of adducing the statement was to demonstrate the deceased’s state of mind – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the evidence was inadmissible – The state of mind exception to the hearsay rule could not be used to prove the intentions of someone other than the declarant – The jury should have been instructed as to its limits – Moreover, because it was made in circumstances of suspicion, it was not reliable – Accordingly, under the principled approach to the admission of hearsay it was inadmissible – See paragraphs 153 to 217.
Evidence – Topic 1527
Hearsay rule – Exceptions and exclusions – Where admission of hearsay necessary and evidence reliable – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the relationship between the traditional hearsay exceptions and the principled approach to the admission of hearsay – The court stated that “the logic of the principled approach demands that it must prevail in situations where it is in conflict with an existing exception … Hearsay evidence may only be admitted if it is necessary and reliable, and the traditional exceptions should be interpreted in a manner consistent with this requirement” – See paragraph 213.
Evidence – Topic 1527
Hearsay rule – Exceptions and exclusions – Where admission of hearsay necessary and evidence reliable – [See
Criminal Law – Topic 5529
].
Evidence – Topic 1631
Hearsay – Exceptions and exclusions – Statements of deceased persons – Statements of present intention – [See
Criminal Law – Topic 5529
].
Evidence – Topic 1675
Hearsay – Exceptions and exclusions – Statements of physical sensation and mental condition – Extra-judicial identification of accused from photograph – [See
Criminal Law – Topic 5252
].
Cases Noticed:
Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon (1892), 145 U.S. 285, refd to. [paras. 7, 69].
Hunter v. State, 40 N.J.L., refd to. [para. 7].
R. v. Rockey (S.E.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 829; 204 N.R. 214; 95 O.A.C. 134; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [paras. 11, 184].
R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 92; 79 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 19, 105].
R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218; 9 C.R.(5th) 1; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 19, 105].
R. v. Smith (A.L.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 94 D.L.R.(4th) 590; 15 C.R.(4th) 133, refd to. [para. 22].
R. v. Levogiannis, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 475; 160 N.R. 371; 67 O.A.C. 321; 25 C.R.(4th) 325; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 327; 18 C.R.R.(2d) 242, refd to. [para. 31].
R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 7 C.R.(4th) 117; 83 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [paras. 31, 188].
Ares v. Venner, [1970] S.C.R. 608, refd to. [para. 32].
Myers v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1965] A.C. 1001 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 32].
R. v. K.G.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740; 148 N.R. 241; 61 O.A.C. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 19 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [paras. 35, 160].
R. v. Terry (R.S.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 207; 197 N.R. 105; 76 B.C.A.C. 25; 125 W.A.C. 25; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 508, refd to. [para. 43].
Watkins v. Olafson et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 750; 100 N.R. 161; 61 Man.R.(2d) 81; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 577; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 481; 39 B.C.L.R.(2d) 294; 50 C.C.L.T. 101, refd to. [para. 45].
R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C. 125; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 45].
R. v. Hawkins (K.R.) and Morin (C.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1043; 204 N.R. 241; 96 O.A.C. 81; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [paras. 52, 191].
R. v. Chahley (N.W.) (1992), 13 B.C.A.C. 213; 24 W.A.C. 213; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 60, 194].
R. v. Collins (W.H.) (1997), 96 B.C.A.C. 49; 155 W.A.C. 49; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 514 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 60, 194].
R. v. McKenzie (1986), 32 C.C.C.(3d) 527 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].
R. v. R.P. (1990), 58 C.C.C.(3d) 334 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [paras. 63, 142].
R. v. Moore (1984), 5 O.A.C. 51; 15 C.C.C.(3d) 541 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1985] 1 S.C.R. x; 58 N.R. 312; 7 O.A.C. 320, refd to. [para. 63].
L.N.M. v. Green (1995), 14 B.C.L.R.(3d) 194 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 63].
Neufeld v. Child and Family Services of Winnipeg (1993), 89 Man.R.(2d) 150 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 63].
R. v. Jack (B.G.) (1992), 76 Man.R.(2d) 168; 10 W.A.C. 168; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 67 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].
R. v. McLeod (1991), 6 B.C.A.C. 223; 13 W.A.C. 223 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].
R. v. Miller (1991), 50 O.A.C. 282; 5 O.R.(3d) 678 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].
R. v. Carriere (1986), 40 Man.R.(2d) 150 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].
R. v. Baron von Lindberg (1977), 66 B.C.L.R. 277 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 63].
R. v. Flemming (1980), 43 N.S.R.(2d) 249; 81 A.P.R. 249 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 63].
R. v. Jackson (1980), 57 C.C.C.(2d) 154 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].
Hildebrand v. Butler (1979), 11 B.C.L.R. 234 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 63].
R. v. Strongquill (1978), 43 C.C.C.(2d) 232 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].
R. v. Baltzer (1974), 10 N.S.R.(2d) 561; 2 A.P.R. 561 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].
R. v. Bencardino and DeCarlo (1973), 2 O.R.(2d) 351 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].
Grant Estate, Re, [1971] 1 W.W.R. 555 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 63].
Great West Uranium Mines Ltd. v. Rock Hill Uranium Mines Ltd., [1955] 4 D.L.R. 307 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].
Gray v. New Augarita Porcupine Mines Ltd., [1952] 3 D.L.R. 1 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 63].
R. v. Wysochan (1930), 54 C.C.C. 172 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].
R. v. Covlin, [1923] 3 W.W.R. 555 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].
R. v. Ferry (1992), 18 C.R.(4th) 221 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 63].
J.B., Re (1998), 166 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 511 A.P.R. 1 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].
Collins v. Collins (1993), 114 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 215; 356 A.P.R. 215 (Nfld. U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 63].
R. v. Mafi (K.) (1998), 114 B.C.A.C. 161; 186 W.A.C. 161; 21 C.R.(5th) 139 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].
Home v. Corbeil, [1955] 4 D.L.R. 750 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 63].
United States v. Pheaster (1976), 544 F.2d 353 (9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 69].
People v. Alcalde (1944), 148 P.2d 627 (Cal.), refd to. [para. 69].
R. v. Bisson (Y.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 306; 22 N.R. 365; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [paras. 81, 230].
R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397; 3 C.R.(4th) 302, refd to. [paras. 86, 233].
R. v. Tombran (T.) (2000), 124 O.A.C. 51; 47 O.R.(3d) 182 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 91].
R. v. Bevan and Griffith, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 599; 154 N.R. 245; 64 O.A.C. 165; 104 D.L.R.(4th) 180; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 310; 21 C.R.(4th) 277, refd to. [para. 138].
R. v. T.T. and S.L. (1997), 103 O.A.C. 15; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 147].
R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30; 138 D.L.R.(3d) 202; [1983] 1 W.W.R. 251; 39 B.C.L.R. 201; 29 C.R.(3d) 193; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 394, refd to. [para. 159].
R. v. Sharp, [1988] 1 W.L.R. 7; [1988] 1 All E.R. 65; 88 N.R. 47 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 161].
Giles v. United States (1981), 432 A.2d 739 (D.C. App.), refd to. [para. 171].
United States v. Brown (1973), 490 F.2d 758 (D.C. Cir.), refd to. [para. 171].
People v. Madson (1981), 638 P.2d 18 (Colo.), refd to. [para. 171].
Shepard v. United States (1933), 290 U.S. 96, refd to. [para. 171].
R. v. Carter, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 938; 47 N.R. 288; 46 N.B.R.(2d) 142; 121 A.P.R. 142; 31 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 174].
R. v. L.E.D., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 111; 97 N.R. 321; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 142, reving. (1987), 20 B.C.L.R.(2d) 384 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 184].
R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 184].
R. v. F.J.U., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 764; 186 N.R. 365; 85 O.A.C. 321; 42 C.R.(4th) 133; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 128 D.L.R.(4th) 121; 42 C.R.(4th) 133, refd to. [para. 191].
R. v. Kelly (R.W.) (1999), 213 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 545 A.P.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 194].
R. v. D.R., H.R. and D.W. (1995), 131 Sask.R. 81; 95 W.A.C. 81; 98 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 194].
R. v. Grand-Pierre (1998), 124 C.C.C.(3d) 236 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 194].
R. v. Bisson (Y.), [1997] R.J.Q. 286; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 154 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 194].
Wepruk v. McMillan Estate (1993), 26 B.C.A.C. 127; 44 W.A.C. 127; 77 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 194].
R. v. Crossley (M.J.J.) (1997), 95 B.C.A.C. 61; 154 W.A.C. 61; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 533 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 194].
R. v. Warner (J.R.) (1994), 75 O.A.C. 288; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 540 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 194].
R. v. Leipert (R.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 281; 207 N.R. 145; 85 B.C.A.C. 162; 138 W.A.C. 162; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 200].
R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 200].
R. v. J.W.L. (1994), 75 O.A.C. 81; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 263 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 216].
R. v. Tam (R.K.N.) et al. (1995), 61 B.C.A.C. 40; 100 W.A.C. 40; 100 C.C.C.(3d) 196 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 216].
R. v. Rose (A.) (1998), 108 B.C.A.C. 221; 176 W.A.C. 221 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 216].
R. v. B.C. and K.G. (1993), 62 O.A.C. 13; 12 O.R.(3d) 608 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 217].
Idaho v. Wright (1990), 497 U.S. 805, refd to. [para. 217].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Archibald, Bruce P., The Canadian Hearsay Revolution: Is Half a Loaf Better Than No Loaf at All? (1999), 25 Queen’s L.J. 1, p. 34 [para. 216].
Blok, Murray B., The Changed Law of Hearsay Evidence (Or, Hearsay Today, gone Tomorrow) (1993), 51 Adv. 675, p. 685 [paras. 41, 50].
Canada, Law Reform Commission, Report on Evidence (1975), pp. 5 [paras. 31, 46]; 68 [para. 159]; 69 [paras. 45, 159].
Carter, P.B., Hearsay: Whether and Whither? (1993), 109 L.Q. Rev. 573, p. 579 [para. 44].
Choo, Andrew L.-T., Hearsay and Confrontation in Criminal Trials (1996), pp. 166 to 168 [para. 195]; 169 [para. 44]; 170 [para. 195].
Cross on Evidence (7th Ed. 1990), pp. 42 [para. 161]; 510 [para. 31].
Cross on Evidence (9th Ed. 1999), p. 58 [para. 184].
Delisle, R.J., K.G.B. and Its Progeny (1998), 14 C.R.(5th) 75, p. 75 [para. 35].
Delisle, R.J., R. v. Smith: The Relevance of Hearsay (1991), 2 C.R.(4th) 260, p. 264 [paras. 6, 68].
Ireland, Law Reform Commission, The Rule Against Hearsay, Reports (1979), vol. 2, pp. 201 to 209 [para. 47].
Kiesel, Diane, One Person’s Thoughts, Another Person’s Acts: How the Federal Circuit Courts Interpret the Hillmon Doctrine (1984), 33 Cath. U.L. Rev. 699, pp. 738, 739 [para. 171].
MacCrimmon, Marilyn T., Developments in the Law of Evidence: The 1990-91 Term – Social Science, Law Reform and Equality (1992), 3 Sup. Ct. L.R.(2d) 269, p. 322 [para. 41].
Maguire, John MacArthur, The Hillmon Case – Thirty-Three Years After (1925), 38 Harv. L. Rev. 709, p. 721 [para. 171].
Marin, André, How to Assess Reliability in Khan and K.G.B. Applications (1996), 38 Crim. L.Q. 353, generally [para. 35].
McCormick, Charles Tilford, Handbook on the Law of Evidence (5th Ed. 1999), § 59 [para. 184].
McCrea, Patricia McNeill, Judicial Law-Making; The Development of the Principled Exception to the Hearsay Rule – Implications for Preliminary Hearing Recantations (1998), 61 Sask. L. Rev. 199, p. 208 [paras. 35, 41, 43, 44].
McWilliams, Peter K., Canadian Criminal Evidence (3rd Ed. 1988) (2000 Looseleaf Update) (Release 24), p. 3-8 [para. 184].
Morgan, Edmund M., Hearsay Dangers and the Application of the Hearsay Concept (1948), 62 Harv. L. Rev. 177, generally [para. 160].
Oleskiw, Diane, Recent Developments in the Law of Hearsay (1994), 1 Crown’s Newsletter 37, p. 38 [para. 41].
Ontario, Law Reform Commission, Report on the Law of Evidence (1976), p. 15 [para. 46].
Paciocco, David M., The Supreme Court of Canada and Hearsay: The Relevance for Arbitration, Labour Arbitration Yearbook (1994-95), p. 139 [para. 44].
Phipson, The Law of Evidence (12th Ed. 1976) (1980 Supp.), pp. 263, 264, para. 625 [para. 159].
Phipson, The Law of Evidence (15th Ed. 2000), p. 110 [para. 184].
Prithipaul, Ravi, Observations on the Current Status of the Hearsay Rule (1996), 39 Crim. L.Q. 84, p. 92 [paras. 41, 50].
Rosenberg, Marc, Developments in the Law of Evidence: The 1992-93 Term — Applying the Rules (1994), 5 Sup. Ct. L.R.(2d) 421, p. 487 [para. 50].
Rosenberg, Marc, K.G.B. – Necessity and Reliability: The New Pigeon-Holes (1993), 19 C.R.(4th) 69, pp. 71 [paras. 42, 60]; 75 [para. 50]; 80, 81 [paras. 42, 196].
Rowsell, Derek, Necessity and Reliability: What is the Impact of Khan on the Admissibility of Hearsay in Canada? (1991), 49 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. 294, pp. 295 [para. 33]; 304 to 308 [para. 42].
Schiff, Stanley, Evidence in the Litigation Process (4th Ed. 1993), vol. 1, pp. 239, 240, 241 [para. 160]; 660 [para. 43]; 661 [para. 50].
Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), pp. 176 [para. 31]; 191 [para. 41]; 193 [para. 43]; 303 to 307 [para. 174]; § 2.83 [para. 184]; 6.225 to 6.242 [para. 63]; 6.236 [para. 170].
Stewart, Hamish, Prior Identifications and Hearsay: A Note on R. v. Tat (1998), 3 Can. Crim. L.R. 61, p. 64 [paras. 41, 44].
Stuesser, Lee, R. v. K.G.B.: Prior Inconsistent Statements as Truth (1991), 5 C.R.(4th) 373, p. 378 [para. 41].
Then, Edward, Dying Declarations Following Khan and Smith: Are They Necessarily Reliable? in National Criminal Law Program: Criminal Evidence (1994), vol. 1, s. 6.5 [para. 195].
Thompson, D.A. Rollie, The Supreme Court Goes Hunting and Nearly Catches a Hearsay Woozle (1995), 37 C.R.(4th) 282, pp. 283 [para. 35]; 284, 291 [para. 44]; 295 [para. 50].
United Kingdom, Law Commission, Criminal Law — Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Hearsay and Related Topics, Consultation Paper No. 138 (1995), pp. 145 to 159 [para. 47].
Watt, David, Manual of Criminal Evidence (1999), p. 281 [para. 188].
Wigmore, John Henry, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (Chadbourn Rev. 1974), vol. 5, p. 253 [para. 206].
Wigmore, John Henry, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (Chadbourn Rev. 1976), vol. 6, p. 139, §1725 [paras. 6, 168].
Wigmore, John Henry, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (Tillers Rev. 1983), §13 [para. 184].
Wood, Josiah, Hearsay – Necessity and Reliability (1997), 20 Prov. Judges J. 5, generally [para. 35].
Younger, Irving, An Irreverent Introduction to Hearsay (An Address to American Bar Association Annual Meeting) (1977), generally [para. 162].
Counsel:
G. Greg Brodsky, Q.C., and Anthony H. Dalmyn, for the appellant;
Gregg Lawlor, for the respondent;
Bernard Laprade and Silvie Kovacevich, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Canada;
Alexander Budlovsky and Marian K. Brown, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia.
Solicitors of Record:
Walsh Micay & Company, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the appellant;
The Attorney General of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent;
Bernard Leprade, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Canada;
The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Ontario;
The Ministry of the Attorney General, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia.
This appeal was heard on February 24, 2000, before McLachlin, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was rendered in both official languages on September 29, 2000, when the following opinions were filed:
McLachlin, C.J.C., dissenting (Bastarache, J., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 18;
L’Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting (Gonthier, J., concurring) – see paragraphs 19 to 102;
Iacobucci, J. (Major, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 103 to 245.
