Supreme Court

Summary: Accused was originally charged in a 44-count indictment - At the opening of trial guilty pleas were entered on nine counts and the Crown stayed six others - By the end of the Crown's case a further seventeen counts were dismissed - Twelve counts remaining to which the Accused pleaded not guilty - Crown lead evidence with respect to all those counts as well as to the counts to which guilty pleas have been entered as there was disputes as to facts on some of those counts - Crown sought to use as similar fact evidence the evidence from each count to support every other count including those relating to the guilty pleas - Accused also brought a motion to sever the nine counts to which he had pleaded guilty from the rest of the indictment and to have each of the 12 indictments to which he plead not guilty tried separately. On the Crown's motion, Court held that the evidence at issue was highly probative and relevant - Prejudicial impact was ameliorated by the fact that it was not a jury, but rather a judge alone trial - Probative value of the similar fact evidence was not outweighed by its prejudicial effect - On the Accused's motion Court held that the counts to which the Accused had pleaded guilty be treated as separate indictments from those to which he had pleaded innocent - On the counts to which the Accused had pleaded innocent the primary issue was credibility - Therefore the Crown had properly exercised its discretion to try the various counts together in one indictment
Abstract: Similar fact and sverance ruling
Decision: The counts to which the accused has pleaded guilty will be treated as separate indictments, all other counts will remain as part of 1 indictment ; Similar fact evidence is allowed
Subjects: Criminal law - Evidence - Similar fact evidence
Criminal law - Indictment and information - Joinder or severance of counts