Adoption of prior inconsistent statement

R. v. Kelly, 2011 ONCA 549 sets out the law related to the adoption of prior inconsistent statements. It is important to remember a prior statement may be admissible, though not adopted, if it otherwise qualifies under the Wigmore criteria for hearsay evidence. The Court holds:

Under the prevailing authority a witness cannot adopt a prior inconsistent statement unless that witness has a present recollection of the events referred to in the statement and can attest to the accuracy of the statement based on a present recollection of those events. A witness who has no present recollection of the events but insists that the statement was true because, for example, she would not lie to the police, has not adopted the prior statement and subject to some other rule of evidence, the prior statement is not admissible for its truth: see R. v. Toten (1993), 83 C.C.C. (3d) 5, at p. 23 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. McCarroll (2008), 238 C.C.C. (3d) 404, at paras. 38-39 (Ont. C.A.)