|
Evidence - Adoptive Admissions. R. v. Lalji [evidentiary impact of guilty plea]
In R. v. Lalji (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a criminal appeal, here brought against a conviction for "a single count of conspiring to import cocaine into Australia".
Here the court considers the evidentiary impact of a guilty plea, both as an admission and wrt co-defendants:[49] This was an error for two different reasons. First, Mr. Pastukhov’s guilty plea was not evidence that could be used against Mr. Lalji: see e.g., R. v. Dawkins, 2021 ONCA 113, 155 O.R. (3d) 111, at paras. 13-15; R. v. Tsekouras, 2017 ONCA 290, 353 C.C.C. (3d) 34, at para. 177. Second, his guilty plea cannot properly be interpreted as an admission that he had actual knowledge that the object of the conspiracy was to import cocaine, because wilful blindness “can substitute for actual knowledge whenever knowledge is a component of the mens rea”: R. v. Briscoe, 2010 SCC 13, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 411, at para. 21; see also R. c. Cedeno, 2010 QCCA 2359, 276 C.C.C. (3d) 238, at paras. 30-38. . R. v. Gordon
In R. v. Gordon (Ont CA, 2022) the Court of Appeal considers the law of 'adoptive admissions', where a person can be deemed to have admitted a statement even though not expressly and orally:[46] The appellant submits that the appellant’s response of “[s]hut up, shut up, shut up” and that this was not a conversation for the phone, to Ms. Merraro’s comment to him that she had heard rumours at school that he was responsible for the victim’s death, could not amount in law to an “adoptive admission”. Therefore, the trial judge erred in law by instructing the jury that they could treat his response as an adoptive admission, and further erred by giving them an unbalanced instruction which did not give them the option of another interpretation.
....
[49] An inference of adoption may be available to be drawn based on a person’s words, actions, conduct, or demeanor in response to a statement made by another person and heard by the person whose response is being considered. Silence in the face of statements made by others, or an equivocal or evasive denial, may also constitute an adoptive admission where the circumstances give rise to a reasonable expectation of reply: R. v. Beauchamp, 2015 ONCA 260, 326 C.C.C. (3d) 280, at para. 247; R. v. Robinson, 2014 ONCA 63, 118 O.R. (3d) 581, at paras. 48-58.
|
