{"id":6153,"date":"2016-05-25T19:53:28","date_gmt":"2016-05-25T23:53:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/doyonavocats.ca\/preuve-extrinseque-salle-du-jury\/"},"modified":"2019-08-09T07:07:33","modified_gmt":"2019-08-09T11:07:33","slug":"preuve-extrinseque-salle-du-jury","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/preuve-extrinseque-salle-du-jury\/","title":{"rendered":"Une preuve extrins\u00e8que dans la salle du jury : Kenol c. R., 2016 QCCA 509"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/canlii.ca\/t\/gjc5m\">R. v. Farinacci, 2015 ONCA 392<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">(voir aussi\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/canlii.ca\/t\/gp0sf\">Kenol c. R., 2016 QCCA 509<\/a>)<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\">Existe-t-il une possibilit\u00e9 que la preuve extrins\u00e8que puisse avoir affect\u00e9e le verdict du jury?<\/h2>\n<p class=\"AParaNumbering\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">[<a class=\"paragAnchor\" name=\"par26\"><\/a>26]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0It is common ground that\u00a0<em>R. v. Pan; R. v. Sawyer<\/em>,\u00a0<span class=\"reflex3-block\"><a class=\"reflex3-caselaw\" href=\"http:\/\/www.canlii.org\/en\/ca\/scc\/doc\/2001\/2001scc42\/2001scc42.html\"><span class=\"reflex3-alt\">2001 SCC 42<\/span>\u00a0(CanLII)<\/a>,\u00a0<span class=\"reflex3-alt\">[2001] 2 S.C.R. 344<\/span>, at para. 59<\/span>, expresses the governing test, \u201c[E]vidence indicating that the jury has been exposed to some information or influence from outside the jury should be admissible for the purpose of considering whether or not there is a reasonable possibility that this information or influence had an effect upon the jury\u2019s verdict.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"AParaNumbering\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><!--more--><\/p>\n<p class=\"AParaNumbering\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">[<a class=\"paragAnchor\" name=\"par27\"><\/a>27]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0On the other hand, jurors are not blank slates. They are expected to use their general knowledge, life experience and knowledge in coming to a decision. As observed in\u00a0<em>R. v. Pan<\/em>, at para. 61:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p class=\"CQuote\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">Jurors are expected to bring to their task their entire life\u2019s experiences. It is on the basis of what they know about human behaviour, knowledge that they have obviously acquired outside the courtroom, that they are requested to assess credibility and to draw inferences from proven facts. Even though not the object of evidence tendered in the trial, an opinion, a piece of general information, or even some specialized knowledge that a juror may reveal in the course of the deliberations, is not an extrinsic matter.\u00a0 Typically, such information would not be the object of evidence tendered at trial.\u00a0 It would be viewed as either irrelevant, too remote, or as attempting to usurp the functions of the jury.\u00a0 On the other hand, if a juror, or a third party, conveys to the jury information that bears directly on the case at hand that was not admitted at trial, by reason of an oversight or a strategic decision by counsel or, worse yet, by operation of an exclusionary rule of admissibility, then it is truly a matter \u201cextrinsic\u201d to the deliberation process and the fact that it was introduced into that process may be revealed.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>R. v. Farinacci, 2015 ONCA 392 (voir aussi\u00a0Kenol c. R., 2016 QCCA 509) Existe-t-il une possibilit\u00e9 que la preuve extrins\u00e8que puisse avoir affect\u00e9e le verdict du jury? [26]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0It is common ground that\u00a0R. v. Pan; R. v. Sawyer,\u00a02001 SCC 42\u00a0(CanLII),\u00a0[2001] 2 S.C.R. 344, at para. 59, expresses the governing test, \u201c[E]vidence indicating that the jury [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":12644,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[120],"tags":[],"yst_prominent_words":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6153"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6153"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6153\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12644"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6153"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6153"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6153"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=6153"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}