The Crown can admit character evidence of the accused when the evidence establishes context, background, or narrative.
The accused puts into evidence that he has good character, with the inference being that someone with good character couldn't have committed the crime. The Crown is now allowed to:
Prove that the accused's statement about his character is false.
Provide evidence of the accused's poor character, so is more likely to have committed the crime.
The Crown is not allowed to adduce evidence of the accused's bad character.
The cases R v Lavasseur and R v Clarke stand for what proposition?
Can look to different communities to determine community reputation.
Employers cannot give evidence of reputation in the community.
Witnesses can only talk about general reputation, not specific instances of the accused doing good things.
Community reputation is not allowed for sexual assault cases, because sexual offences happen in private.
When considering similar fact evidence, the fact must always happen before the offence.
Similar fact evidence can only be used to show propensity, but not the actual commission of the offence charged.
The probative value of similar fact evidence comes from the fact that...
the similar facts imply the present facts.
the facts are strikingly similar.
the similar facts causally prove the present facts.
The accused can raise the character of a non-accused third party, so long as...
(check all that apply)
The Crown has investigated the third party.
They have the particular bad character to commit the crime.
There is a link between the third party and the crime.
There is evidence that suggests the third party committed the crime.
The accused can bring up the bad character of the victim.
Past sexual acts may be admitted as evidence.
