Re-examination should be confined to matters arising in cross-examination

R. v. Stiers, 2010 ONCA 382 contains a good restatement of the rule against splitting evidence by raising matters on re-examination that ought to be raised in chief. The rule is a good one because, generally, matters dealt with in re-examination are not subject to further exploration by cross-examination. Some cunning counsel have been known to leave an important, but obvious, point to be raised by in cross and then explore and expand on the point in re-examination. Such is, of course, improper.

The Court writes:

[38] In the words of Martin J.A.'s oft-cited judgment in R. v. Moore (1984), 5 O.A.C. 51 (C.A.) (leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [1985] S.C.C.A. No. 248) at p. 70, re-examination ordinarily "must be confined to matters arising in cross-examination" although the trial judge does have the discretion to allow the facts to be introduced and afford the opposite party the right to cross-examine on any new facts. The law on this issue was recently explained by Watt J.A. in R. v. Candir (2009), 257 O.A.C. 119, at para. 148:

It is fundamental that the permissible scope of re-examination is linked to its purpose and the subject-matter on which the witness has been cross-examined. The purpose of re-examination is largely rehabilitative and explanatory. The witness is afforded the opportunity, under questioning by the examiner who called the witness in the first place, to explain, clarify or qualify answers given in cross-examination that are considered damaging to the examiner's case. The examiner has no right to introduce new subjects in re-examination, topics that should have been covered, if at all, in examination in-chief of the witness. A trial judge has a discretion, however, to grant leave to the party calling a witness to introduce new subjects in re-examination, but must afford the opposing party the right of further cross-examination on the new facts. [Citation omitted.]