Case information

Criminal law — Evidence — Cumulative evidence — Whether prejudicial effect of repetitive evidence outweighed probative value — Offences — Elements of offence — First-degree murder — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the probative value of the hearsay statements from the deceased victim outweighed their prejudicial effect — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was evidence capable of proving that the applicant murdered the victim while committing criminal harassment and intending that she fear for her safety.<br><br>

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.

On January 1, 2013, Victoria Doyle was beaten and strangled to death in her home. The applicant and Ms. Doyle attended the same New Year’s Eve party on the night of her death. Ms. Doyle returned home after the party; the applicant followed her there uninvited. There is no direct evidence of what occurred in Ms. Doyle’s home to cause her death, but her blood was found on the applicant’s winter jacket.

Over the months preceding her death, Ms. Doyle made statements, verbally and by text message, describing the deterioration of her intimate relationship with the applicant. These statements tended to characterize the applicant as violent and obsessive. At trial, the Crown relied in part upon Ms. Doyle’s statements to allege that the applicant murdered her while committing the offence of criminal harassment, and that he intended that Ms. Doyle fear for her safety, thus elevating the murder to first-degree murder under s. 231(6) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant objected to the admission of Ms. Doyle’s statements on the basis that they were needlessly repetitive and therefore prejudicial. The applicant also sought a directed verdict on first-degree murder under s. 231(6) on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to satisfy that section’s prerequisites.

The trial judge found that Ms. Doyle’s statements were admissible hearsay. The trial judge also held that there was sufficient evidence of the elements of first-degree murder required by s. 231(6) to leave that path to liability with the jury. The jury found the applicant guilty of first-degree murder and the trial judge entered a conviction accordingly. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.