Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources

Evidence - Prior Consistent Statements (3)

. R. v. U.P.

In R. v. U.P. (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a criminal appeal.

Here the court considers the need for a 'prior consistent statement' jury instruction:

[22] The general object of a prior consistent statement instruction is to caution the jury against impermissibly relying on a witness’s prior consistent statements to bolster his or her credibility or reliability. Specifically, the fact that someone said the same thing on a prior occasion is not probative of whether a witness, including a complainant, is offering truthful testimony in court. Allowing a witness to bolster their trial testimony with their own prior statements is self-serving: see R. v. Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 788, at para. 36; R. v. Khan, 2017 ONCA 114, 136 O.R. (3d) 520, at para. 25, leave to appeal refused, [2017] S.C.C.A. No. 139; and R. v. Mackenzie, 2015 ONCA 93, 19 C.R. (7th) 150, at para. 11.