R. v. Schneider 2022 SCC 34 – Case Summary
The Supreme Court of Canada revisits the party admission exception to the general rule against hearsay evidence.
Who
The victim, a female Japanese student, is reported missing on September 12, 2016. Police release a photo of the victim and an unknown male, and ask for the public’s assistance in identifying him.
Police receive a tip from Schneider’s brother, leading them to recover her body in a suitcase in Vancouver’s West End.
Schneider is arrested for second-degree murder and interfering with the victim’s body after death.
What
Schneider’s brother overhears him speaking with his wife on a cellphone. He testifies that Schneider asked his wife “[d]id you see the news of the missing Japanese woman, student?”, and indicated something to the effect of “I did it” or “I killed her”.
The trial judge allows the brother’s testimony to go before the jury, despite the testimony being hearsay evidence.
Where
The trial is heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (BCSC), by judge & jury. Schneider is convicted of second-degree murder, and pleads guilty to interfering with the victim’s body after her death.
Schneider appeals the second-degree murder conviction to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (BCCA), on the basis that the trial judge erred in interactions with the jury, and erred in admitting parts of the telephone conversation overheard by his brother.
A split BCCA agrees that the overheard conversation was hearsay and should not have been admitted. The appeal is allowed and a new trial is ordered.
The Crown appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). The Court reverses the decision of the BCCA, the appeal is dismissed, and the second-degree murder conviction is upheld.
Why
Judges are the evidence “gatekeeper” in a jury trial. They must consider a three-part test when allowing evidence into Court (para 36):
(1) Whether the evidence is relevant; and
(2) Whether there is a legal rule to exclude the evidence; and
(3) Whether they should exercise their discretion to exclude the evidence
Hearsay evidence is defined simply:
(a) any written or spoken statement, that (b) was made outside of court, and, (c) is being used to prove the truth of the statement.
As example, a witness, let’s call him “Bob”, testifies that another person, “Greg”, told him that that the accused, “Steve”, punched him outside of a bar.
Hearsay evidence is presumed to be inadmissible.
It cannot be used in Court unless the party who wishes to use it can show that there is a special exception AND that the evidence is reliable, necessary, and that its usefulness - the “probative value” – is not outweighed by its danger to trial fairness – the “prejudicial effect”.
Courts have recognized special exceptions, including admissions made by the accused.
To use our example above, if the accused, Steve, told Bob that he punched Greg, that evidence can generally go into Court.
“Party admission” is a related exception (para 55):
“acts or words of a party offered as evidence against that party”
These exceptions are on that basis that “people do not readily make statements that admit facts contrary to their interests, unless those statements are true” (para 56).
Schneider’s brother testified that he overheard Schneider admitting responsibility for the murder. The SCC held that this is a clear example of a party admission, and a recognized exception to the general rule against hearsay evidence (para 78).
The Gist
Party admissions are a well-established exception to the general rule against hearsay evidence.
Unlike many hearsay exceptions, they generally do not require a judge to consider the reliability and necessity of the evidence (para 55):
“Thus, with the exception of the “rare cas[e]” where judges retain discretion to exclude any hearsay evidence on the basis that it is unreliable or unnecessary (Mapara, at para. 15), reliability and necessity are not relevant to the admissibility of a party admission.”
Like all hearsay exceptions, the probative value of the evidence must not be outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
Confession-like evidence, such as party admissions, present a real possibility of prejudicial use by a jury. This can be balanced by a trial judge giving the jury clear and effective instructions on how to use the evidence (para 81-83).