Corbett applications should usually be allowed

R. v. Lindsey, 2011 ONCA 420 is a good illustration that Corbett applications should generally be allowed and the prior record of the accused redacted. Here the Court declined to redact on the basis so to do would leave an unbalanced impression on the jury and because the accused had a history of aggression. The first reason makes sense; the second is odd. Regardless, in general, where the charge is similar to the existing record there should be redaction. The Court rules:

[3] The appellant had three prior convictions for break and enter and theft. Those convictions occurred between 12 and 14 years prior to his conviction on the within offence and took place when the appellant was a youth. The appellant had four more recent convictions, three for assault and one for uttering threats.

[4] In his Corbett ruling, the trial judge reviewed the appropriate authorities. However, in para. 23 of his ruling, he made what we view to be two errors. First, he determined that the record should be admitted because "he [the appellant] was well aware of aggressive behaviour. He was not a neophyte person who was confronted with a violent situation for the first or second time." As we read this reason, the trial judge was saying that the record of previous assaults should be admitted because it showed that the appellant had a disposition to violence. That was an error.

[5] Second, the trial judge said that it would be improper to exclude the appellant's record because the jury would not have a balanced view of the complainant in comparison to the appellant. However, the appellant had not cross-examined the complainant with respect to her character. He only challenged her version of the events giving rise to the charge. He was answering the charge, nothing more. This was not a case where the trial judge needed to admit the record in order to paint a balanced picture of the respective characters of the complainant and the accused.