Sentences with phrase «evidence in a sexual assault trial»

Section 278.2 (1) of the Criminal Code states that no records containing personal information regarding the complainant or a witness in the trial shall be produced for the accused to be used as evidence in a sexual assault trial.

Feb. 20 - 24, 2017 The Supreme Court of Canada will hear four appeals this week: one criminal concerning treatment of evidence in a sexual assault trial and the other three civil, notably Teva Canada's appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario regarding banks» liability for converting cheques in fraudulent circumstances.

Not exact matches

San Angelo, Texas (CNN)- Texas prosecutors rested their case Wednesday in the sexual assault trial of polygamous sect leader Warren Jeffs after playing a key piece of evidence for jurors: an audiotape they allege documents his sexual assault of a 12 - year - old girl.

The Supreme Court of Canada will hear five appeals this week, including three criminal cases involving driving «over 80» and production of evidence; an unjust enrichment claim; and an appeal in a sexual assault case in which the Court of Appeal of Alberta had found that a trial judge had erred by relying on a stereotype about the behaviour of sexual assault victims.

Section 276 (1) of the Criminal Code states that the defendant in a sexual assault trial can not admit evidence relating to the complainants past sexual history to prove that the complainant likely consented to the sexual activity alleged in the charge or to show that the complaint is untrustworthy or lacks veracity.

In the Alberta Court of Appeal ruling reported as R v Wagar, 2015 ABCA 327 Justice Brian K. O'Ferrall, speaking for a unanimous court, made short shrift of Justice Camp's judgment, at p. 1: ``... [W] e are satisfied that the trial judge's comments throughout the proceedings and in his reasons gave rise to doubts about the trial judge's understanding of the law governing sexual assaults and in particular, the meaning of consent and restrictions on evidence of the complainant's sexual activity... We are also persuaded that sexual stereotypes and stereotypical myths, which have long since been discredited, may have found their way into the trial judge's judgment.&raquIn the Alberta Court of Appeal ruling reported as R v Wagar, 2015 ABCA 327 Justice Brian K. O'Ferrall, speaking for a unanimous court, made short shrift of Justice Camp's judgment, at p. 1: ``... [W] e are satisfied that the trial judge's comments throughout the proceedings and in his reasons gave rise to doubts about the trial judge's understanding of the law governing sexual assaults and in particular, the meaning of consent and restrictions on evidence of the complainant's sexual activity... We are also persuaded that sexual stereotypes and stereotypical myths, which have long since been discredited, may have found their way into the trial judge's judgment.&raquin his reasons gave rise to doubts about the trial judge's understanding of the law governing sexual assaults and in particular, the meaning of consent and restrictions on evidence of the complainant's sexual activity... We are also persuaded that sexual stereotypes and stereotypical myths, which have long since been discredited, may have found their way into the trial judge's judgment.&raquin particular, the meaning of consent and restrictions on evidence of the complainant's sexual activity... We are also persuaded that sexual stereotypes and stereotypical myths, which have long since been discredited, may have found their way into the trial judge's judgment.»

As outlined in s. 278.2 (1) of the Criminal Code no record relating to a witness or complainant in a sexual assault trial will be admitted into evidence.

They fell into three categories: (a) Justice Camp was dismissive of, if not contemptuous towards, the substantive law of sexual assault and the rules of evidence (b) his statements and reasoning demonstrated a pervasive inability or refusal to account for the perspective of the complainant and (c) he made numerous statements throughout the trial, and in his reasons or verdict, that perpetuate rape myths.

An accused can testify on the trial itself but also, for example, on a motion to exclude evidence under the Charter, or to create the foundation for a motion to get past the so - called «rape - shield» rules which otherwise may prevent full cross-examination of a complainant in a sexual assault matter.

Having read the Crown's factum, portions of the trial transcript and having heard Crown counsel's arguments, we are satisfied that the trial judge's comments throughout the proceedings and in his reasons gave rise to doubts about the trial judge's understanding of the law governing sexual assaults and in particular, the meaning of consent and restrictions on evidence of the complainant's sexual activity imposed by section 276 of the Criminal Code.

At defendant's trial for abduction with intent to defile, the Charlottesville Circuit Court will admit evidence of abduction / sexual assault charges at issue in Albemarle County; the defendant allegedly in the other case similarly lured the victim with a ruse, through...

At trial, in an attempt to link the episode with the sexual assault, the Crown called clinical psychologist Dr. Wolfe to give expert evidence concerning the episode and what it revealed (at para. 24).

The trial in New Haven had several factors that can aggravate jurors» stress: multiple victims including children, sexual assault, graphic evidence and — as a capital case — the responsibility of deciding whether a defendant should live or die, jury scholar Valerie Hans said.