Write Your Exam Code Here: Return this exam question paper to your invigilator at the end of the exam before you leave the classroom. THIS TEST CONSISTS OF 6 PAGES PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOU HAVE A COMPLETE PAPER THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA FACULTY OF LAW FINAL EXAMINATION - DECEMBER 2016 LAW 476 (Evidence) Section 001 Emma Cunliffe MARKS: 100 TIME ALLOWED: 3.0 HOURS (INCLUDING READING TIME) ******** *** * * * ***** * NOTES: 1. This is a limited open book examination. You may only bring the required materials (Stewart et al Casebook, materials posted on connect), your own notes, CANS prepared yourself or with others enrolled this term in this course and an English dictionary into the examination room. Use of library books or other texts is prohibited during the examination. 2. Please answer all questions, giving reasons for your answer. If you need additional facts to answer a question, identify the missing facts and state why they are necessary. 3. Question 1 is worth 60 marks, and is divided into two parts, each of which is worth 30 marks. Question 3 is worth 40 marks.
LAW 476, Section 001 2/6 (Notes continued) 4. Suggested times are given for each question, and for general reading. The times have been allocated as follows: Total time allocated to questions: Suggested reading time: Total 160 minutes 20 minutes 180 minutes THIS EXAMINATION CONSISTS OF THREE QUESTIONS. PLEASE CHECK THAT YOU HAVE A COMPLETE EXAMINATION.
LAW 476, Section 001 3/6 MARKS 60 1. You are the trial judge, sitting in the case of R v Alice Wilson. Ms Wilson has been charged with murder in respect of the death of her uncle, Vernon Maple. The Crown alleges that Ms Wilson set a fire in the doublewide mobile home she shared with Mr Maple, with the intention of killing Mr Maple. On the Crown theory, Ms Wilson waited until Mr Maple had fallen asleep in a chair beside the electric fire in their home, poured kerosene around the chair, set fire to the kerosene and then climbed out a window in her bedroom, leaving the front door of the home locked. She waited until the fire was well established before raising the alarm with a neighbour. Ms Wilson has pleaded not guilty. The defence theory is that the fire began in one of two possible ways. Either the electric fire malfunctioned, causing an electrical fire that spread from that point; or Mr Maple fell asleep while holding a lit cigarette, and the cigarette became the cause of the fire. A neighbour has testified that Mr Maple was a prolific smoker of cigarettes and that he had been known to fall asleep in front of the television in his living room. 30 (a) (Suggested time: 48 minutes) The Crown wishes to bring evidence from a fire inspector, Chief Edison. Edison is the chief of the fire station in the small BC community where Wilson and Maple lived. He attended the fire that killed Maple. The defence objects to the admissibility of Edison s evidence, and so you have heard Edison s testimony on voir dire. Edison testifies that he qualified as a firefighter in 1992, and has risen through the ranks since then. In 2001, he completed his training as a fire investigator. This training was supplied by senior firefighters in his organization who had themselves qualified as fire investigators. The training lasted for four weeks, and covered topics such as identifying the place where a fire started and differentiating between a fire started with the use of accelerants and fires started by electrical faults. He identified that this training was based on the National Fire Protection Association standard 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations (1992 edition) (NFPA 921). Edison uses this manual in the course of his investigations and is a member of the NFPA. Chief Edison described NFPA 921 as providing the tools for scientific-based investigation and analysis. The NFPA maintains a research division that conducts scientific research that forms the basis for the NFPA 921 standards. However, Chief Edison testified that he has no training in scientific methods and relatively little knowledge of how the NFPA conducts its research or how that research infornis the content of NFPA 921. On cross-examination, Chief Edison agreed that when he
LAW 476, Section 001 4/6 conducted the investigation into this fire, he knew that Maple had died in the fire and that Wilson was suspected of causing his death. He had met Maple a number of times because Maple and Edison belonged to separate curling teams in the local community. Maple testified that while deaths in fires were fortunately rare, he usually knew those who were victims in such circumstances because he had lived and worked in the same relatively small community most of his life. Edison testified that he is able on the basis of his training and experience to identify that this fire was caused by an accelerant such as kerosene. Tell-tale signs of fire started by accelerant include the presence of large shiny blisters on wall surfaces in the room where the fire began, dark black smoke patterning throughout the home, and the V-patterning of the smoke on the walls of the living room near where the fire started. He agreed on cross-examination that Mr Maple s chair and the area immediately around it including the electric fire were completely destroyed in the fire, and that the fire would also have destroyed any evidence of a lit cigarette. However, he testified that on the basis of his training and experience, fires started by electrical faults or direct combustion without the use of accelerants gave rise to very different smoke and blister patterns from those seen in this fire. Defence counsel sought to cross-examine Edison on the findings emerging from research conducted by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NEST). However, Edison testified that he is not familiar with this research and does not regard it as authoritative. Consequently, you have ruled in accordance with the decision in Marquard that defence counsel may not cross-examine Edison on these papers. Based on notice given by the defence, you anticipate that the defence will be calling its own expert, who will testify about the NIST research. Defence counsel also introduced evidence that the NFPA 921 standard has been superseded by a 2015 edition. In cross-examination, Edison testified that he had not previously seen this edition and it was not included in the library of his fire station. He agreed with defence counsel that the 2015 edition suggests the need for caution before concluding from smoke and blister patterns that accelerants have been used. However, he testified that based on his extensive experience investigating more than 80 fires, the patterns in this case were very distinctive and he was therefore confident in his opinion. Write your judgment regarding the admissibility of Chief Edison s evidence. Ensure that you identify and apply relevant case law and explain the reasoas for your decision.
LAW 476, Section 001 5/6 MARKS 30 (b) (Suggested time: 48 minutes) The Crown has closed its case and the defence has now begun to lead evidence. Ms Wilson is testifying. So far in her evidence in chief, she has testified to having been woken by the fire on the night of the fatal fire, and explained why she was unable to save her uncle. The defence has now brought an application to admit hearsay evidence through Ms Wilson s testimony. This evidence will take the form of medical records relating to Mr Maple, together with Ms Wilson s testimony about the circumstances that gave rise to those records. The medical records show that about eight months before the fatal fire, Mr Maple was admitted to the local hospital with serious burns to his right lower leg. He was treated for these burns and stayed for two nights in the hospital before being released with instructions for home care. If permitted to testify about the circumstances that gave rise to these records, Ms Wilson will say that on the night Mr Maple was injured, she was watching television in her bedroom. Ms Wilson heard Mr Maple shouting in pain and shock. When she went into the living room, she found him lying on the floor wrapped in a blanket. He told her that he had fallen asleep while smoking, and woken to find his pyjama trousers on fire. He had used the blanket to smother the flames. Ms Wilson drove him to the hospital and cared for his wound after he was discharged. Around two months after this incident, the local community hospital was closed due to budget cuts. The personnel who worked there and who attended to Mr Maple have now been dispersed across Canada. Defence counsel tells you that, since Ms Wilson has no income and is reliant on legal aid, it is not possible for her to pay the expenses that would be associated with bringing a medical witness or nurse to testify to these events. However, the medical records defence counsel has secured are certified true copies of the official hospital records. Write your ruling on the admissibility of the medical records and Ms Wilson s testimony regarding the circumstances that gave rise to Mr Maple s injury. (30 marks)
MARKS LAW 476, Section 001 6/6 Write a critical analysis of one of the cases that we have studied this year (this critical analysis must focus on a case extracted in the casebook and assigned for reading, or posted on the course website). 40 2 (Suggested time 64 minutes)