Thursday, December 26, 2013

DNA presence or absence and transference not mere "common sense"

R v Pruden, 2013 CanLII 83110:

[13]                     The nature of the DNA evidence in this case was not straightforward and I agree that expert evidence was required to explain the significance of its presence or absence in respect of particular locations.  See R. v. F.M.,2009 ONCA 485 (CanLII), 2009 ONCA 485 at para. 20, 250 O.A.C. 257.  That is, the requirement for expert evidence regarding the transference of DNA can also include situations where the jury is asked to draw an inference from its presence as well as from its absence.  See R. v. Robinson (C.L.),2003 BCCA 353 (CanLII), 2003 BCCA 353, 184 B.C.A.C. 97.  This was one of those cases.

No comments: