R v Mohan

Last updated
R v Mohan
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Hearing: November 9, 1993
Judgment: May 5, 1994
Full case nameHer Majesty The Queen v Chikmaglur Mohan
Citations [1994] 2 SCR 9
Rulingappeal was allowed and the evidence was excluded.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer
Puisne Justices: Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons bySopinka J.

R v Mohan, 1994 CanLII 80 , [1994] 2 SCR 9 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the use of expert witnesses in trial testimony.

Contents

Background

Chikmaglur Mohan was a pediatrician in North Bay, Ontario. He was charged with sexual assault of four teenage patients. During his trial, the defence tried to put Dr. Hill, a psychiatrist, on the stand as an expert on sexual assault. Hill intended to testify that the perpetrator of the offence must have possessed several abnormal characteristics, which Mohan did not have. In a voir dire hearing, Hill testified that the culprit in the first three assaults was likely a pedophile, while the fourth assault would have been by a sexual psychopath. This evidence was held to be inadmissible by the judge. Mohan was eventually convicted at trial but his conviction was overturned on appeal.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Hill's testimony could be admitted as that of an expert witness, and whether the testimony would violate the rule against character evidence.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Sopinka, for a unanimous Court, allowed the appeal and held that the evidence should be excluded.

Expert evidence, stated Sopinka in the ruling, should be admitted based on four criteria:

Relevance is a question of law and so is determined by the judge. Where it approaches the "ultimate issue" of the trial, the standard for inclusion must be stricter. To be considered necessary, the expert evidence must be outside the likely everyday experience of a judge and jury. In that regard, Sopinka stated:

Expert evidence, to be necessary, must likely be outside the experience and knowledge of a judge or jury and must be assessed in light of its potential to distort the fact‑finding process. Necessity should not be judged by too strict a standard. The possibility that evidence will overwhelm the jury and distract them from their task can often be offset by proper instructions. Experts, however, must not be permitted to usurp the functions of the trier of fact causing a trial to degenerate to a contest of experts.

In total, the expert evidence should be included where the probative value of the evidence outweighs any prejudicial effect it may cause.

In the current case, Sopinka found that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that there was any clear standard for determining the profile of a pedophile or psychopath. Thus, the expert evidence was not considered reliable. Furthermore, the expert's evidence was not sufficiently relevant to be of any help.

Impact

The criteria set out in Mohan did not include a stand-alone requirement for experts to have independence and impartiality, but many of the lower courts have attempted to infer such a requirement. [1] [2] In 2013, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that that is not required. [3] In affirming that ruling in 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada disagreed with the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal and held that the expert's duty to the court creates a threshold requirement for the admissibility of the expert's evidence, [4] in which the determining factor is "whether the expert’s opinion would not change regardless of which party retained him or her". [5]

Related Research Articles

An expert witness, particularly in common law countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States, is a person whose opinion by virtue of education, training, certification, skills or experience, is accepted by the judge as an expert. The judge may consider the witness's specialized opinion about evidence or about facts before the court within the expert's area of expertise, to be referred to as an "expert opinion". Expert witnesses may also deliver "expert evidence" within the area of their expertise. Their testimony may be rebutted by testimony from other experts or by other evidence or facts.

Hearsay is testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting an out-of-court statement that is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

In law, a summary judgment is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial. Summary judgments may be issued on the merits of an entire case, or on discrete issues in that case.

In United States federal law, the Daubert standard is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony. A party may raise a Daubert motion, a special motion in limine raised before or during trial, to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. The Daubert trilogy are the three United States Supreme Court cases that articulated the Daubert standard:

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), is a United States Supreme Court case determining the standard for admitting expert testimony in federal courts. The Daubert Court held that the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence implicitly overturned the Frye standard; the standard that the Court articulated is referred to as the Daubert standard.

In United States law, a harmless error is a ruling by a trial judge that, although mistaken, does not meet the burden for a losing party to reverse the original decision of the trier of fact on appeal, or to warrant a new trial. Harmless error is easiest to understand in an evidentiary context. Evidentiary errors are subject to harmless error analysis, under Federal Rule of Evidence 103(a) The general burden when arguing that evidence was improperly excluded or included is to show that the proper ruling by the trial judge may have, on the balance of probabilities, resulted in the opposite determination of fact.

The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction.

Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is any testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a factfinder—usually a judge or jury—to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant and "not excluded by the rules of evidence", which generally means that it must not be unfairly prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability. The general rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible and all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible, though some countries proscribe the prosecution from exploiting evidence obtained in violation of constitutional law, thereby rendering relevant evidence inadmissible. This rule of evidence is called the exclusionary rule. In the United States this was effectuated federally in 1914 under the Supreme Court case Weeks v. United States and incorporated against the states in 1961 in the case Mapp v. Ohio, both of which involving law enforcement conducting warrantless searches of the petitioners' homes, with incriminating evidence being descried inside them.

<i>R v Khan</i>

R v Khan [1990] 2 SCR 531 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision that began a series of major changes to the hearsay rule and the rules regarding the use of children as witnesses in court. In this case, and subsequently in R v Smith (1992), R v B (KG) (1993), R v U (FJ) (1995), R v Starr (2000), and finally, R v Khelawon (2006), the Court developed the “principled approach” to hearsay, where hearsay statements can be admitted if they are sufficiently reliable and necessary.

Wee Care Nursery School, located in Maplewood, New Jersey, was the subject of a day care child abuse case that was tried during the 1980s. Although Margaret Kelly Michaels was prosecuted and convicted, the decision was reversed after she spent five years in prison. An appellate court ruled that several features of the original trial had produced an unjust ruling and the conviction was reversed. The case was studied by several psychologists who were concerned about the interrogation methods used and the quality of the children's testimony in the case. This resulted in research concerning the topic of children’s memory and suggestibility, resulting in new recommendations for performing interviews with child victims and witnesses.

<i>R v Béland</i> Case of the Supreme Court of Canada

R v Béland [1987] 2 S.C.R. 398 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court rejected the use of polygraph results as evidence in court.

<i>R v Handy</i>

R v Handy, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908, 2002 SCC 56, is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on similar fact evidence. The Court proposed what is known as the Handy test for determining whether past occurrences that resemble the crime can be admitted as evidence.

A rape shield law is a law that limits the ability to introduce evidence or cross-examine rape complainants about their past sexual behaviour. The term also refers to a law that prohibits the publication of the identity of an alleged rape victim.

<i>R v Darrach</i>

R v Darrach, [2000] 2 SCR 443, 2000 SCC 46, is a case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of the Criminal Code's "rape shield law". The Court upheld the law.

<i>Azoulay v R</i>

Azoulay v R, [1952] 2 S.C.R. 495 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on abortion in Canada. The Court found that with evidence so complicated, a judge should summarize it to a jury.

<i>R v Marquard</i>

R v Marquard, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 223, is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada on the admissibility of expert testimony.

Relevance, in the common law of evidence, is the tendency of a given item of evidence to prove or disprove one of the legal elements of the case, or to have probative value to make one of the elements of the case likelier or not. Probative is a term used in law to signify "tending to prove". Probative evidence "seeks the truth". Generally in law, evidence that is not probative is inadmissible and the rules of evidence permit it to be excluded from a proceeding or stricken from the record "if objected to by opposing counsel". A balancing test may come into the picture if the value of the evidence needs to be weighed versus its prejudicial nature.

Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case about the application of the Confrontation Clause and whether Crawford v. Washington (2006) applied retroactively. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that Crawford did not apply retroactively.

<i>R v W (D)</i>

R v W (D), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on assessing guilt based on the credibility of witnesses in a criminal trial. More specifically, W.D. examines sexual assault cases and burdens of proof in evidence law.

Michael Moldaver is a Canadian judge. He has been a puisne justice on the Supreme Court of Canada since his 2011 appointment by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Before his elevation to the nation's top court, he served as a judge at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal for Ontario for over 20 years. A former criminal lawyer, Moldaver is considered an expert in both Canadian criminal law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

References

  1. ↑ R v Abbey, 2009 ONCA 624 (27 August 2009)
  2. ↑ United City Properties Ltd v Tong, 2010 BCSC 111 (28 January 2010)
  3. ↑ Abbott and Haliburton Company v WBLI Chartered Accountants, 2013 NSCA 66 (24 May 2013)
  4. ↑ Derek J. Bell; Jason W.J. Woycheshyn; Gannon G. Beaulne (2015-04-30). "Supreme Court Clarifies that Experts' Duty to the Court is a Threshold Requirement for Admissibility". Bennett Jones.
  5. ↑ White Burgess Langille Inman v Abbott and Haliburton Co, 2015 SCC 23 at par. 32(30 April 2015)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.