|
Evidence - Hearsay - No Truth Use. R. v. Budlakoti
In R. v. Budlakoti (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismisses a criminal appeal, here when the appellant "sold several firearms to a man he met in jail. Unbeknownst to the appellant, that man had become a police agent for the Ontario Provincial Police (the “OPP”)" - giving rise to a defence argument of entrapment.
Here the court considers the bar on the use of hearsay evidence for it's truth value:[10] Hearsay evidence is presumptively inadmissible for its truth: R. v. Khelawon, 2006 SCC 57, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 787, at para. 2. Double hearsay, like the “too hot” statement, is no exception. The police agent was reporting what Kenemy told him about what the appellant allegedly said. The statement of the accused was itself admissible as a party admission, a “well-recognized exception to the hearsay rule”: R. v. Couture, 2007 SCC 28, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 517, at para. 75. However, the police agent’s testimony about what someone else reported about what the accused said clearly engages the traditional hearsay dangers.
[11] While the statement was presumptively inadmissible for its truth, the trial judge’s reasons must be evaluated against the dynamic of the hearing itself, and the positions taken by the parties. Doing so reveals that the trial judge made no error in relying on the statement.
|
