The accused and three of his friends were involved in a fight with two other men, During the fight, one of the youths pulled out a knife and stabbed one of the men in the chest killing him. The four teens fled the scene. Two weeks later the youths were brought in and interviewed separately by the police. During the interview the officers made it clear that the youths were under no obligation to answer any questions. With the youths consent the interviews were videotaped. In the boy’s statements they had told the police that the accused had made statements to them in which the accused acknowledged that he thought he had caused the death of the victim. The accused was charged with second-degree murder and he entered a plea of not guilty. The …show more content…
At trial, the youths recanted their earlier video taped statements and during the crowns cross-examination pursuant to s.9 of the Canada Evidence Act, the boys stated they had lied to the police to exculpate themselves from possible involvement. The witnesses’ prior inconsistent statements could not be tendered as proof that the accused actually made the admissions. Under common law, they could only be used to impeach the witness credibility. The only other evidence of the identity of the assailant was identification evidence provided by the victim’s brother. The trial judge found that the dock identification was naked and that the brother had only a poor opportunity to observe his brothers attacker. Doubts also existed in connection with his latter evidence because of several inconsistencies between elements of the description of the attacker. In absence of other identification evidence, the trial judge was forced to acquit the accused and the Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal. The three witnesses plead guilty to perjury as a result of their testimony at trial. In this appeal, the Crown asks the Court to reconsider the common law rule, which limits the use of prior inconsistent statements to impeaching the credibility of the