Canadian Evidence Case Law - R. V. Starr, R. V. Khan, R. V. Khelawon, R. V. B.(K.G.), R. V. Beland, R. V. Mohan, R. V. Oickle (Paperback)

Chapters: R. V. Starr, R. V. Khan, R. V. Khelawon, R. V. B.(k.g.), R. V. Beland, R. V. Mohan, R. V. Oickle, Solosky V. the Queen, R. V. Smith, Descoteaux V. Mierzwinski, Graat V. the Queen. Source: Wikipedia. Pages: 44. Not illustrated. Free updates online. Purchase includes a free trial membership in the publisher's book club where you can select from more than a million books without charge. Excerpt: Supreme Court of Canada R. v. Starr 2 S.C.R. 144 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision that re-evaluated several principles of evidence. In particular, they held that the "principled approach" hearsay evidence under R. v. Khan and R. v. Smith (1992) can be equally used to exclude otherwise inclusive hearsay evidence. In addition, the Court examined the judge's charge to the jury on the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. In August 1994, Bernard Cook and Darlene Weselowski were drinking with Robert Dennis Starr in a hotel near Winnipeg. In the late hours of the night Starr parted ways with Cook and Weselowski. Together, Cook and Weselowski were approached by Jodie Giesbrecht, a sometimes girlfriend of Cook. During an ensuing conversation Cook told Giesbrecht that he could not go with her that night because he had to "go and do an Autopac scam with Robert," as he had been given $500 for wrecking a car for insurance purposes. A few hours later the bodies of both Cook and Weselowski were found on the side of a nearby highway. They had been shot in the head. Starr was arrested in connection with the murders. At trial, the Crown advanced the theory that the murders were gang-related, where Starr had used the insurance fraud scam as a means to get Cook into the countryside to murder him. The case hinged on the testimony of Giesbrecht and the statement she heard from Cook that night. The judge found the statement admissible on the "present intentions" or "state of mind" exception to the hearsay rule. In a 5 to 4 decision t...More: http: //booksllc.net/?id=370631