Part of the narrative

Statements, particularly in criminal domestic situations, are often allowed as "part of the narrative".

This phrase is often misunderstood -- statements adduced as part of the narrative are not proof of their contents but rather are allowed merely to put actions in context.

That said, their cumulative effect can be devastating.

Yesterday's decision in R. v. C.M., 2010 ONCA 55 is a good example of how narrative is allowed. Note, the apparently lower requirements for narrative's admission is justified because of the limited use to which narrative may be put. The Court writes:

"First, the appellant submits that the trial judge failed to conduct a voir dire before admitting the complainant's hearsay statement when she first complained.  While there was no voir dire and no recorded ruling dealing with the admission of this evidence, we do not accept the submission that these shortcomings undermine the conviction.  There was no request for a voir dire at trial and no objection by trial counsel to the admission of this evidence.  The evidence was admissible in any event as part of the narrative and it was one of a series of out-of-court statements that were properly admitted."

James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4

416 225 2777

www.jmortonmusings.blogspot.com