Eyewitness identification evidence does not always require corroboration

R. v. Hassan, 2011 ONCA 407, released today on-line, is a useful source for the proposition that eyewitness identification does not always require corroboration. Particularly where an identification is made of someone known to the witness the need for corroborating materials is lessened. The Court writes:

[9] The appellant submits that there was no external corroborating evidence, whether forensic evidence, video surveillance, or hard evidence from a search of the appellant's home. The complainants, he asserts, had only very limited opportunity to view the perpetrator; the photo lineup procedure was problematic because it was conducted a week after the incident, late at night after Moore had finished a shift at work; and there was no audio or video recording of it. We disagree.

[10] Although there was no evidence to confirm or corroborate the identification evidence of Wilson and Moore, the other concerns with eyewitness evidence identified by this Court in R. v. Tat (1997), 35 O.R. (3d) 641 did not exist in this case. That is:

· Wilson and Moore recognized the appellant in the parking lot from the game. Thus, the appellant was not a stranger to them.

· Wilson and Moore had a reasonable opportunity to observe the appellant, during the basketball game, in the parking lot and, in Moore 's case, in the discussion before the shooting. The circumstances of the identification, therefore, were conducive to an accurate identification.

· Wilson and Moore picked the appellant out of a properly constituted and properly conducted photo lineup; the photo is consistent with the descriptions provided. Both of them were given proper cautions prior to conducting the lineup, and Moore viewed three lineups. Pre-trial identification processes, therefore, were sound.

[11] While the lineups were arguably not perfect, the evidence of Wilson and Moore was more than capable of being believed and accepted by the jury. Furthermore, the trial judge instructed the jury about the frailties of eyewitness identification evidence and they must be taken to have considered this. The decision of the jury, based on the evidence, is entirely reasonable.