Canadian Law of Evidence/Real evidence
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
Real evidence consists of all tangible evidence, physical objects such as , tape recordings, computer printouts or photographs. Real evidence, as all other evidence, must first be relevent. Secondly, it must be authentic.
Authentication is often proven by having witnesses identify the object and verify its authenticity. The leading case on authentication of real evidence is in R. v. Parsons. The case hinged on a wiretap whose lawfulness was in question. The issue was handled in a voir dire. However, on appeal the Court said that an issue for the trier of fact to determine not the trial judge. The judge must only determine if the evidence has met the minimum statutory requirement.
"Evidence: Principles and Problems" by Delisle, et al. outlines the procedure for submitting evidence:
- call a witness with personal knowledge of the object,
- ask the witness to describe ethe object before showing it to the witnes,
- allow the witness to examine and identify it as genuinem and
- ask that the object be entered as an exhibit, with the appropriate stamp applied by the clerk.
Contents |
[edit] Demonstrative Evidence
[edit] Views
A view is when the jury must leave the court room to view evidence. This is usually in situations where a scene of an offence must be examined in person to get a proper perspective of the situation.
In a criminal trial the judge may elect to take a view under section 652(1) of the Criminal code. While in a civil trial, the provincial civil procedure rules provide a similar option.
[edit] Photographs
In order to admit photographic evidence in the Court, the party submitting the evidence must satisfy three requirements established in R. v. Creemer.
- All the cases dealing with the admissibility of photographs go to show that such admissibility depends on (1) their accuracy in truly representing the facts; (2) their fairness and absence of any intention to mislead; (3) their verification on oath by a person capable to do so.
[edit] Video
The requirements for admitting video evidence is the same as those of photos. However, in the case of video tape there is the added danger of potential of tape alterations (editing, slow-motion replay, etc), so the judge must be even more cautious when admitting vidoe evidence.
In R. v. Nikolovski the Supreme Court held that a video tape alone, without corroborating evidence, is sufficient to allow a trier of fact to identify the accused.
[edit] Audio
Audio recording are to be treated in the same manner as witness testimony, but with the added weight provided that it is a more accurate record of past conversations. The use of private recorded coversations in a criminal trial usually requires a voir dire to be held.Canadian law:Evidence
