R. v. Li, 2013 ONCA 81 is a useful reminder that hearsay applies to statements and not observations. So a description of something seen in a photograph cannot be hearsay (although it may be excluded on other grounds):
[31] The hearsay rule has four essential elements:
i. a declarant;
ii. a recipient;
iii. a statement; and
iv. a purpose.
The defining characteristics of hearsay are the purpose for which the evidence is introduced – to prove the truth of the contents of the statement – and the absence of a contemporaneous opportunity to cross-examine the declarant to test the reliability of the out-of-court statement: R. v Khelawon, 2006 SCC 57, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 787, at para. 35.
…
[36] I would not give effect to this ground of appeal. My reasons are several.
[37] First, the photograph viewed by D/C Henderson on the MOT database, considered apart from the contents of the licence and ownership of the plate/vehicle, was not rendered inadmissible by the hearsay rule. The photograph was not a “statement”, an essential feature of the exclusionary rule, nor was it tendered to prove the truth of its contents.
James, this has nothing to do with the post it's attached to.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious about the bail for Brazeau.
I read that it's $1000.00
That seems remarkably low to me.
Is it in line with similar cases of assault and sexual asault?
supreme t shirt
ReplyDeleteoff-white
kobe shoes
jordan sneakers
air jordan
yeezy 380
stephen curry shoes
nike epic react
kyrie shoes
jordan retro