Le carnet de droit pénal

« Analyse des témoignages » : différence entre les versions

← Modification précédenteModification suivante →
Visuel
Aucun résumé des modifications
Aucun résumé des modifications
Ligne 1 : Ligne 1 :
{{en|Analyzing_Testimony}}
{{en|Analyzing_Testimony}}
{{fr|Analyse_des_témoignages}}
{{Currency2|June|2022}}
{{Currency2|June|2022}}
{{LevelZero}}
{{LevelZero}}
{{HeaderWeighing}}
{{HeaderWeighing}}
==Findings of Fact==
==Constatations de faits==
{{seealso|Admissions of Fact}}
{{seealso|Admissions de faits}}


Only the trier-of-fact (ie. the judge or jury) can make findings of fact unless there is an agreement on facts or an admission under [{{CCCSec|655}} s. 655] of the Code.<ref>
Seul le juge des faits (c'est-à-dire le juge ou le jury) peut tirer des conclusions de fait à moins qu'il n'y ait un accord sur les faits ou un aveu en vertu du [{{CCCSec|655}} art. 655] du Code.<ref>
see [[Admissions of Fact]]
see [[Admissions de faits]]
</ref>
</ref>


===Analysis of Testimony===
===Analyse du témoignage===
; Tools of Analysis
; Outils d'analyse
When considering testimony evidence, its value comes down to four factors:<ref>
Lors de l'examen des témoignages, leur valeur se résume à quatre facteurs :<ref>
Kenneth S. Broun et al., 2 McCormick on Evidence, (6th ed.) (USA: Thomson/West, 2006), §245{{atp|125}} and  
Kenneth S. Broun et al., 2 McCormick on Evidence, (6th ed.) (USA: Thomson/West, 2006), §245{{atp|125}} and  
{{CanLIIRP|Baldree|fqcws|2012 ONCA 138 (CanLII)|280 CCC (3d) 191}}{{perONCA|Feldman JA}} (2:1){{AtL|fqcws|43}} - appealed on other grounds at [http://canlii.ca/t/fz7b7 2013 SCC 35] (CanLII)</ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Baldree|fqcws|2012 ONCA 138 (CanLII)|280 CCC (3d) 191}}{{perONCA|Feldman JA}} (2:1){{AtL|fqcws|43}} - appealed on other grounds at [http://canlii.ca/t/fz7b7 2013 SCC 35] (CanLII)</ref>
# perception,  
# perception,
# memory,
# mémoire,
# narration, and
# narration, et
# sincerity
# la sincérité


; Evidence Not to be Analyzed Separately
; Les preuves ne doivent pas être analysées séparément
Facts should not be examined separately and in isolation to the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.<ref>
Les faits ne doivent pas être examinés séparément et isolément selon la norme de preuve hors de tout doute raisonnable.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Morin|1ftc2|1988 CanLII 8 (SCC)|[1988] 2 SCR 345}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}} (6:0) ("facts are not to be examined separately and in isolation with reference to the criminal standard")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Morin|1ftc2|1988 CanLII 8 (SCC)|[1988] 2 SCR 345}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}} (6:0) ("facts are not to be examined separately and in isolation with reference to the criminal standard")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Narwal|25vgk|2009 BCCA 410 (CanLII)|[2009] BCJ No 1941 (CA)}}{{perBCCA|Frankel JA}} (2:1){{atL|25vgk|88}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Narwal|25vgk|2009 BCCA 410 (CanLII)|[2009] BCJ No 1941 (CA)}}{{perBCCA|Frankel JA}} (2:1){{atL|25vgk|88}}<br>
Ligne 28 : Ligne 27 :
</ref>
</ref>


However, beyond determining whether the evidence, on the whole, proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, "it is for the trier of fact to determine how to proceed."<ref>
Cependant, au-delà de déterminer si la preuve, dans son ensemble, prouve la culpabilité hors de tout doute raisonnable, « il appartient au juge des faits de déterminer comment procéder ».<Ref>
{{supra1|Morin}}{{AtL|1ftc2|40}} ("during the process of deliberation the jury or other trier of fact must consider the evidence as a whole and determine whether guilt is established by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. This of necessity requires that each element of the offence or issue be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond this injunction, it is for the trier of fact to determine how to proceed")</ref>
{{supra1|Morin}}{{AtL|1ftc2|40}} ("during the process of deliberation the jury or other trier of fact must consider the evidence as a whole and determine whether guilt is established by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. This of necessity requires that each element of the offence or issue be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond this injunction, it is for the trier of fact to determine how to proceed")</ref>


; No Choosing of Stories
; Pas de choix d'histoires
When confronted with two contradictory stories, a judge does not need to make a finding of fact as to which story is correct.<ref>  
Lorsqu’il est confronté à deux récits contradictoires, un juge n’a pas besoin de déterminer quelle version est correcte.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Avetysan|524j|2000 SCC 56 (CanLII)|[2000] 2 SCR 745}}{{perSCC-H|Major J}} (4:1){{atL|524j|2}}</ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Avetysan|524j|2000 SCC 56 (CanLII)|[2000] 2 SCR 745}}{{perSCC-H|Major J}} (4:1){{atL|524j|2}}</ref>


An approach that permits choosing of stories would "erode" the presumption of innocence and standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.<ref>
Une approche qui permettrait de choisir des histoires « éroderait » la présomption d'innocence et la norme de preuve au-delà de tout doute raisonnable.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|DW|1fsm9|1991 CanLII 93 (SCC)|[1991] 1 SCR 742}}{{perSCC|Cory J}} (4:1){{atps|757-8}} (SCR) or 409 (CCC)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|DW|1fsm9|1991 CanLII 93 (SCC)|[1991] 1 SCR 742}}{{perSCC|Cory J}} (4:1){{atps|757-8}} (SCR) or 409 (CCC)<br>
{{supra1|Avetsyan}}{{atsL|524j|18| to 22}}<br>
{{supra1|Avetsyan}}{{atsL|524j|18| to 22}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|JR|g6qz3|2014 QCCA 869 (CanLII)|[2014] Q.J. No 3957 (CA)}}{{perQCCA|Hesler CJ}}{{atL|g6qz3|38}} (the judge “cannot simply choose one over the other.  That would in effect lower the prosecution's burden from proof beyond a reasonable doubt to proof on the balance of probabilities”)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|JR|g6qz3|2014 QCCA 869 (CanLII)|[2014] Q.J. No 3957 (CA)}}{{perQCCA|Hesler CJ}}{{atL|g6qz3|38}} (the judge “cannot simply choose one over the other.  That would in effect lower the prosecution's burden from proof beyond a reasonable doubt to proof on the balance of probabilities”)<br>
</ref>  
</ref>  
However, it is not an error to make "finding of credibility as between the complainant and the accused" as long as all the steps of further analysis are taken.<ref>
Cependant, ce n'est pas une erreur de tirer une « conclusion de crédibilité entre le plaignant et l'accusé » tant que toutes les étapes d'une analyse plus approfondie sont suivies.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Chittick|1x6c0|2004 NSCA 135 (CanLII)|24 CR (6th) 228}}{{perNSCA|Cromwell JA}} (3:0){{atsL|1x6c0|23| to 25}}</ref>  
{{CanLIIRP|Chittick|1x6c0|2004 NSCA 135 (CanLII)|24 CR (6th) 228}}{{perNSCA|Cromwell JA}} (3:0){{atsL|1x6c0|23| to 25}}</ref>  
It is only in error should the judge treat the task as complete once a finding of credibility as between the complainant and accused.<ref>
It is only in error should the judge treat the task as complete once a finding of credibility as between the complainant and accused.<ref>
Ligne 46 : Ligne 45 :
</ref>
</ref>


Guilt should not be based a credibility contest or choice between competing evidence.<ref>
La culpabilité ne doit pas être fondée sur une contestation de crédibilité ou sur un choix entre des preuves concurrentes.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|MDR|ghjh2|2015 ONCA 323 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0)<br>
{{CanLIIRx|MDR|ghjh2|2015 ONCA 323 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Fleig|g633n|2014 ABCA 97 (CanLII)|572 AR 161}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0){{atL|g633n|24}} ("primary concern of the framework in W(D) is that a trier of fact should not line up the Crown and defence evidence and select one over the other.")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Fleig|g633n|2014 ABCA 97 (CanLII)|572 AR 161}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0){{atL|g633n|24}} ("primary concern of the framework in W(D) is that a trier of fact should not line up the Crown and defence evidence and select one over the other.")<br>
Récupérée de "https://carnetdroitpenal.ca/fr/index.php/Analyse_des_témoignages"