Toronto Criminal Lawyers Blog

During the course of a criminal trial the prosecution may try to lead character evidence about the accused individual. For legal purposes, the word “character” refers to a generalized description of a person’s disposition, or that person’s disposition in respect of a general trait such as honesty, temperance or peacefulness. Character evidence is evidence that indicates that the defendant has acted a specific way before, for example dishonestly or violently, and asks the jury to infer that that prior behaviour allows for a  a negative inference to be drawn in respect to an accused’s character with respect to a particular trait. The jury is then asked to specifically infer that that the defendant acted in accordance with that character trait in the incident before the court.

As a general rule, courts will not allow the prosecution to lead evidence about the character of the defendant during the course of his or her criminal trial. The danger, as the court perceives it, is that the jury will use evidence of the defendant’s bad character to infer that the defendant is guilty. There is no logical connection between a person having a bad character and that same person having committed the particular crime at issue. The truth is that lots of people display negative characteristics such as anger, aggression, sexual deviance, dishonesty or selfishness but never commit crimes. However, it is human nature that a jury presented with evidence that a defendant possesses some of these characteristics may be prejudiced against the defendant. Such prejudice could cloud the jury’s judgment and cause them to enter a guilty verdict where one is unsupported by the facts. Because of this, character evidence is generally inadmissible.

There are, however, four exceptions to the rule that character evidence is inadmissible at trial.

The first exception to the rule against character evidence is that the evidence is relevant to a material issue at trial. If the evidence is relevant to a material issue then the jury is not being asked to use evidence of the defendant’s bad character to infer that the defendant is guilty. Rather, the evidence is being tendered because it does directly support another issue in the case. For example, in R. v. Merz, the accused and his wife were in a heated argument that ended with the wife being shot three times. Merz’s defence was that his son had fired the first fatal shot and that he had picked up the gun and fired the second two shots in an effort to shield his son from criminal prosecution. The prosecution maintained that Merz fired all three shots. As part of their case against him, the prosecution relied on the testimony of two witnesses who stated that the victim told them that the defendant had made death threats against her in the past. The evidence was admitted and Merz was convicted at trial. On appeal, Merz argued that the trial judge should have told the jury that they could not use evidence of the previous threats to infer that the defendant was a violent person and therefore more likely to have murdered the deceased. The judge in the appellate court found that the trial judge was correct in admitting evidence of the statements because those statements were not intended to create an inference that the accused was a bad person. Rather, the more natural and powerful inference to be made from the testimony is that the defendant had motive to kill his wife. Even though such statements may have had a secondary role as character evidence, their more significant role in the trial was to lend support to the material issue of motive and for that reason the court could admit them as an exception to the rule against character evidence.

The second exception to the rule against character evidence occurs when the accused leads good character evidence that “puts his or her character at issue”.  Usually the defendant would want to refrain from putting his or her character at issue as this opens the door to allow the prosecution to tender negative character evidence. However, if the accused is of particularly good character or reputation, he or she may choose to enter character evidence to suggest either that his or her testimony is credible and reliable or to suggest that it is unlikely that he or she would have committed the crime. When the accused leads good character evidence to support either or these propositions, the court will allow the prosecution to admit negative character evidence in the interest of fairness so that the evidence is not unfairly or inaccurately skewed in favour of the accused.

The third exception to the rule against character evidence is similar act evidence. Similar act evidence is evidence that the defendant has committed a similar crime or acted similarly in the past. For example, if the defendant is on trial for rape, similar act evidence could consist of evidence that the defendant had raped women in the past using the method indicated in the evidence before the court pertaining to the case at hand. Criminal defence lawyers are very wary of similar act evidence. Practitioners will often say that the decision to admit similar act evidence is as close as a judge will usually come to usurping the role of the jury and making a decision on the outcome of the case. This is because similar act evidence is very prejudicial. The judge’s decision to admit similar act evidence will have profound repercussions on the case. If this type of evidence is admitted improperly a serious miscarriage of justice may occur.

In R. v. Handy the Supreme Court of Canada set out clear guidelines to determine when the court should admit similar act evidence. Here the court cautioned that “there being no offence of being a bad person” the criminal justice system does not “try people for who they are but for what they have done”. However, it pointed out, that principle clashes with another common sense proposition, which is that one of the best ways of determining what a person did on one occasion, is to know how he or she has acted on occasions where the circumstances were similar. The test from R. v. Handy asks the court to consider whether the evidence suggests a propensity to act a certain way with sufficient precision to make the evidence worth receiving despite its prejudicial effect. The court starts from the position that the evidence is inadmissible. The court then considers the similar act evidence. Evidence which suggests a general propensity to engage in the behaviour before the court is insufficient to admit the evidence. For example, in a rape case evidence of past sexual deviance or even past rapes would be insufficient. Specific propensity is required. To continue with the rape example, a specific repeated series of actions or a specific victim profile may be sufficiently precise to suggest the evidence should be admitted. In order to determine whether the evidence is precise enough the court will consider “the objective improbability of coincidence”. In other words, the likelihood that the similar act evidence and the evidence in the case at bar could be the same and not have been committed by the same person. For example, in a sexual assault case, the complainant states that she was drugged at a nightclub, raped and then released. The prosecution wants to admit evidence that the accused was convicted in the past of drugging a girl in a nightclub, raping her and then releasing her. This evidence would probably not meet the threshold required to admit similar act evidence because the behaviour is not particularly unique. However, if the same drug was used to subdue the victim in both cases and it was a very rare drug that was difficult to obtain, then the previous incident is more likely to be admissible. On these new facts, it is much more improbable that the connection between the similar act evidence and the facts before the court are simply a coincidence.

In addition to precision, similar act evidence must also have a high degree of probative value in order to offset the prejudicial effect it will have on the jury. In other words, the evidence must be very strong in order for the judge to admit it despite the fact that invites the jury to draw a negative inference from the accused’s history that he or she is more likely to have committed the offence.

The fourth and final exception to the rule against character evidence occurs in situations where the accused leads character evidence to suggest that a third party committed the offence. In general, when the accused and his or her criminal defence lawyer decide to point the finger at someone else using character evidence the defence invites a comparison between the accused’s character and the character of the third party. However, when the defence uses facts to point the finger to a third party, it does not open the door for the prosecution to tender character evidence about the accused. In other words, if the defence leads evidence that a third party has acted a certain way in the past and try to use that evidence to suggest that the third party committed the crime at hand, then the defendant puts his or her character at issue. However, if the accused’s criminal defence lawyer points to facts (such as the location of the crime in relation to the third party, the third party’s lack of an alibi, or the third parties proximity to the events surrounding the crime), the defendant’s character is not put at issue and the prosecution cannot lead character evidence against the accused as a result.

The rule against character evidence is an important tenant of our criminal justice system. Without the rule against character evidence, individuals would continue to be punished for past crimes or past bad behaviour indefinitely. People who have displayed bad character traits in the past or who had engaged in past criminal behaviour but have served their debt to society should not be punished by the criminal justice system for what they did in the past with new criminal sanctions. Individuals should only be punished by the criminal justice system if the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt on the facts that the defendant committed the crime at question.

Call Kostman and Pyzer, Barristers, Toronto criminal defence lawyers who will defend you aggressively and fight for your rights!

Under Canadian law it is illegal to drive when impaired. Usually when we hear about impaired driving in the media, the focus is on drinking and driving. However, it is also illegal to drive while under the influence of drugs. This law applies both to illegal drugs and to prescription drugs which affect the user’s ability to drive.

The focus is not on the legal status of the drug, but on its effects. Drugs that impair depth perception, attention span, concentration, decision-making, and reaction time are all considered to be “impairing”. This would include street drugs such as cocaine and marijuana and also a wide variety of prescription drugs such as morphine, oxycodone, valium and other painkillers. Obviously, drugs that cause hallucinations, distort the user’s perception of time and distance, cause confusion or make it hard to distinguish between fantasy and reality are extremely impairing. This would include a variety of hallucinogenic street drugs such as magic mushrooms, LSD, acid, and also amphetamines such as ecstasy, crystal meth, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), dexamphetamine.

If a driver is stopped by a roadside spot check (such as Toronto’s RIDE program) or spotted driving erratically by the police, and the police suspect that he or she is currently impaired by drugs, they will investigate. The police have many resources available to them to test whether an individual is driving under the influence of drugs.

If the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that a suspect is impaired by drugs, he or she may administer a Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST). This SFST consists of a series of three tests. The first test is known as the “horizontal gaze nystagmus test”. “Horizontal gaze mystagmus” is the technical terms for the natural involuntary jerking of the eyeball that occurs as the eyes gaze to the side. When an individual is impaired, this jerking becomes exaggerated and occurs earlier. The officer will likely ask the suspect to watch his hand as he moves it from side to side to see if your eyes react abnormally. Moreover, individuals impaired by drugs have difficulty concentrating on a moving object, and so this is also a factor the officer will look for when applying the first test.

The second and third tests in the SFST are known as “divided attention tests”. These test require that the suspect listen and follow instructions while performing simple physical movements. The first is the walk and turn test. The suspect will be instructed to walk nine steps, heel to toe, along a straight line, and then turn on one leg and walk back. The second test is the one leg stand where the suspect is asked to stand on one leg with the other foot about six feet off the ground and count by thousands (“one thousand, two thousand, etc.). Though these tasks would be extremely easy for a sober person to perform, an impaired individual will often have trouble performing these tasks. Impaired individuals often have trouble performing tasks that require them to pay attention to instruction, perform simple mental actions (such as counting in thousands) or performing simple physical acts (such as balancing on one foot). During the “walk and turn test” the officer will watch for seven factors: if the suspect has trouble balancing while listening to the instructions, begins before the instructions are finished, stops while walking to regain his or her balance, does not touch heel-to-toe, uses his or her arms to balance, loses his or her balance while turning, or takes an incorrect number of steps, these will be considered signs of impairment. During the “one leg stand”, the officer will watch to see if the individual has trouble balancing on one foot. If the suspect sways, uses his or her arms for balance, hops on one foot to maintain his or her balance, or looses his or her balance, the officer will view that as a sign of impairment.

The SFSTs are entirely voluntary in every Canadian province except Quebec. In Toronto and the rest of Ontario you are not legally obliged to comply with the SFSTs. There are a variety of reasons why you should not comply with these tests. Though the tests have been studied and shown to be 60-80% accurate when performed properly in ideal conditions, criminal defence lawyers know from experience that, in practice, these test are almost always performed incorrectly in conditions that skew the results. For example, if a suspect is asked to perform these tests on an incline or if the ground is wet, this may interfere with the quality of the results. Moreover, police officers often give poor instructions, causing suspects to misunderstand and subsequently fail the test. Moreover, these skewed results can be used to detain the suspect and transport him or her to the police station for further testing.

If the suspect is detained and taken to the police station, he or she will be evaluated by a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE). If the drug recognition expert is able to evaluate the individual and determine that a specific family of drugs caused the suspect to be impaired, the suspect will be forced to submit to a saliva, urine or blood test. This will be tested for drugs to determine whether or not the individual is impaired.

The new testing regime described above, most notably the mandatory fluid samples, is a relatively new process in Ontario law. It was introduced in July 2008 under Bill C-2: the Tackling Violent Crime Act. There are many reasons why criminal defence lawyers feel that this new legislation is unlikely to be effective. First, unlike alcohol impairment, which is quite obvious, individuals under the influence of marijuana and other similar drugs display few obvious signs of impairment. Though individuals on amphetamines and opiates may display more symptoms of impairment there is very little evidence that these drugs are actually linked to car accidents in any significant way. It seems that most people voluntarily refrain from driving while under the influence of these drugs. Thus, it will be hard to officers to identify correctly suspects to undergo this new process. Second, there is very little evidence that saliva or urine tests provide any accurate information about levels of drugs in the body. The technology for saliva testing of THC (the active drug in marijuana) levels is rudimentary at best. Moreover, urine testing only tells us if the suspect has consumed drugs in the recent past (30 days for marijuana); however, it cannot conclusively link the ingestion of the drug with the time of driving. Only a blood plasma test has the ability to show current levels of drugs in the body. However, since up until now Canadian law has espoused a zero tolerance policy with respect to drugs, there is very little research indicating what levels of each drug in the blood actually leads to “impairment”. Since impairment is a necessary component of the offence of “driving while impaired”, this is an important deficiency in the law. Finally, since a blood test is an invasive procedure and because our law recognizes that individual’s have the right to protect their bodily integrity and make important decisions about their body, mandatory testing – which is unlikely to show conclusive results – it is almost certainly unconstitutional. If you are charged under the new regime, your criminal defence lawyer will certainly challenge the constitutionality of the test. Thus, it is very unlikely that the new process will lead to an increase in convictions of individuals driving while under the influence of drugs.

Recently, in the case of R. v. B., although the Drug Recognition Expert concluded that B was impaired by drug (most likely marijuana), a urine sample taken by the police definitely showed that there was no active drug in B’s bloodstream.