Summary

Keywords

Criminal law — Evidence — Admissibility — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial judge properly admitted instances of past gang violence, in which the applicant was not involved, to impute a gang motive to the applicant — Whether the Court of Appeal’s decision undermines the rigorous approach to bad character evidence set out by this Court’s decision in R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56?

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant and his co-accused both fired shots at Mr. Ahmed and his companions. One of them fired a shot that struck Mr. Ahmed in the neck and he died. The Crown characterized the shooting as a planned and deliberate murder that capped a cycle of escalating violence between the Tandridge Cripz gang and a rival gang. The applicant submitted that it was self-defence. The Crown brought a pre-trial application seeking the admission of evidence of past gang violence and to qualify two police officers to provide expert opinion evidence. The evidence of the prior incidents of violence was a form of prior discreditable conduct and its admission was governed by the test set out in R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908. The trial judge applied the test set out in Handy and admitted six of the prior incidents of violence. After a trial by judge and jury, the applicant was convicted of second degree murder. The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal.

Lower Court Rulings