What Are The Facts Of Lavallee Court Case

Facts Angelique Lavallee killed her common law partner, Kevin Rust, by shooting him in the back of the head late one night after a party at their home. Lavallee was frequently a victim of physical abuse in the relationship, defining her as a battered woman. She made several trips to the hospital for injuries, such as bruises, fractured nose, black eye and multiple contusions, excused by unbelievable reasons. Witnesses testified to seeing and hearing the abuse committed by Rust onto Lavallee prior times to the party as well as at the party that evening. The shooting occurred subsequent to an argument that Lavallee and the deceased had been having in the upper level of the home, after Rust had reportedly told Lavallee to kill him or he would

Such facts and events were produced from interviews outside of the trial, unsworn statements – hearsay. The case could not be decided solely on these facts that were not sworn or first-handedly heard. Lavallee was a very important source of Shane’s information and her failure to testify weakened the credibility of his testimony. The Abbey (R. v. Abbey, 1982) decision offers the appellant to solely allow the expert witness psychiatrist to give his testimony, with little to no weight being held on the facts, or for the appellant themselves to take the stand and confirm the liability of facts in the expert witness’ testimony to ensure greater weight is given to such facts (Ottawa L. Rev., 1985). With Lavallee as one of Shane’s main sources for information, he would have to completely reassess his position in the case that she had been untruthful. A fact to note is that Shane admitted to being misled by patients in the past, which puts his testimony into even greater question concerning Lavallee’s credibility (R. v. Lavallee 1990). As mentioned in Ottawa L. Rev. (1985), statements and interviews made outside of court are not only questionable in sincerity, but also in memory and perception. Since much of Shane’s testimony is based on evidence that had not been proven to exist, the weight to his testimony must be minimal. With such a focus on hearsay, or second-hand evidence, it is required that less

v Lavallee (1990), expert testimony is admissible if the evidence is relevant to the case, even if it is based on hearsay. Though the appellant did not testify, rule 804 of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows hearsay statements to be considered in the event that the appellant refuses to testify (Matson, 2004). The hearsay evidence assists the expert in determining their opinion, but it is not used as evidence to the existence of the facts. As long as there is some admissible evidence to the expert’s testimony, the jury or judge cannot ignore it – the greater matter is determining how much weight should be given to the testimony. The judge is required to warn the jury of the reliability and credibility of the information, and to determine a weight at which the jury should use to influence their decision regarding the case (Ottawa L. Rev.,