What is the general rule against oath-helping?
Parties are not allowed to lead evidence to establish the credibility of that witness.
Parties are not allowed to lead evidence with the sole purpose of establishing the credibility of that witness.
Parties are not allowed to ask questions unrelated to the issue in order to establish the credibility of the witness.
What is the general rule against prior consistent statements?
A statement made at some point in the past consistent with the witness's testimony at trial is not admissible to enhance that witness's testimony.
A statement made by someone other than the witness that corroborates the witness's testimony is not admissible for the purpose of supporting that witness's testimony.
A prior consistent statement is inadmissible, unless its probative value with regards for the truth of the statement is high.
Which of the following is NOT an exception to the rule against prior consistent statements?
When a prior consistent statement forms part of a narrative.
When a prior consistent statement supports a witness's prior identification of a person.
When a prior consistent statement is probative of the trustworthiness of the witness.
R v Tat (1997 ONCA) stands for the proposition that...
The probative value of prior consistent statements identifying a person lies in the fact that the witness was able to identify the person in court.
Without being able to identify the accused in court, the witness must be able to point to a prior consistent statement where she did identify the witness.
When a witness identifies the accused in court, evidence that the witness previously identified the accused is admissible to permit both parties to explore the reliability of the identification.
What is a recent fabrication?
Where what the witness says at trial is inconsistent with what the witness said earlier.
Where what the witness says at trial is alleged to have been influence by something that happened after the events at issue.
Where the witness has fabricated the statement out of a motive to lie.
Allegations of recent fabrication must be express.
According to R v Stirling, prior consistent statements have probative value when...
They illustrate that the witness's story was the same before a motive to fabricate arose.
They illustrate that a witness has never changed their mind, even in the face of contradictory evidence.
They illustrate that a witness has maintained the truth of her statement.
Prior consistent statements of the accused...
Are treated the same as any other prior consistent statement.
Are probative unless they are obviously self-serving.
Work against allegations of recent fabrication as levied against a defendant.
According to R v Edgar (2010 ONCA), a spontaneous exculpatory statement made by the accused...
Can be admitted as an exception to the general rule against prior consistent statements, provided the accused testifies and is open to cross-examination.
Is captured by the general rule against prior inconsistent statements.
Is admissible only if it is made within 24 hours of the event at issue.
The "coherent narrative" exception to the rule against prior inconsistent statements is that
It allows the trier of fact to understand the order in which the events at issue occurred.
Such statements can form an integral part of the Crown's theory.
Some prior consistent statements are necessary to understand what went on since the event in question.
What is the "ultimate issue rule" with respect to expert evidence?
Expert witnesses are useful to the trier of fact to determine what the facts are about a particular issue.
The trier of fact, and not the expert, determines facts about the issues of the case.
Where credibility is at issue, an expert witness on credibility assessments is exempt from the rule against oath-helping.
According to R v Marquard (1993 SCC), experts can...
Testify about the credibility of a witness, so long as they are a properly qualified medical professional.
Testify about information that ordinary people are likely to get wrong.
Testify regarding human behaviour indicative of credibility, not the credibility of a particular witness.
