Rationalizing Similar Facts: A Comment on R. v. Handy

Canadian Criminal Law Review, Vol. 8, pp. 113-133, 2003

21 Pages Posted: 12 Jul 2010

See all articles by Hamish Stewart

Hamish Stewart

University of Toronto - Faculty of Law

Date Written: 2003

Abstract

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Handy provides a welcome restatement and rationalization of the law governing the admissibility of an accused person's prior bad acts ("similar fact" evidence). The court recognizes that evidence of prior bad acts is evidence of bad character. But the court clearly states that such evidence is not admissible for the purpose of showing that the accused has a bad character. Rather, evidence of prior bad acts will be admissible only if it has probative value with respect to a specific, identified, and live issue at the trial and if that probative value outweighs two kinds of prejudicial effects: its tendency to encourage the trier of fact to convict the accused for being a bad person and its tendency to confuse and prolong the trial.

Keywords: Handy, admissibility, prior bad acts, similar fact, bad character, probative value, prejudicial effect

Suggested Citation

Stewart, Hamish, Rationalizing Similar Facts: A Comment on R. v. Handy (2003). Canadian Criminal Law Review, Vol. 8, pp. 113-133, 2003, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1639222

Hamish Stewart (Contact Author)

University of Toronto - Faculty of Law ( email )

78 and 84 Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario M5S 2C5
Canada

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
224
Abstract Views
1,353
rank
165,873
PlumX Metrics