View source for Example Mid-Trial Jury Instructions

{{HeaderJuryInstructions}}
==Admission of Facts==
{{quotation1|
7.1 Admission of Facts (s. 655)
:Note[1]
:(Last revised March 2011)
:[1]              Certain facts have been admitted in this case. This means that you must accept these facts as proved.
(Specify the facts admitted.)
|
}}

==Out of Court Statements==
{{quotation1|
7.2 Out of Court Statements
:(Last revised March 2011)

:(If the out of court statement is by a non-accused, give the following instruction:)

:[1]              You have probably all heard about hearsay evidence. As a general rule, testimony about what someone else said out of court is not admissible to prove the truth of what s/he said. You have heard (NOW) testify that (NOD) said (specify) out of court. The rule applies to this evidence, so that the testimony is not evidence of the truth of what (NOD) said.
:[2]              However, the evidence is admissible to explain (specify the limited purpose for which the evidence is admitted).

(If the out of court statement is by the accused, and there is no co-accused, give the following instruction:)

:[3]              As a general rule, testimony about what someone else said out of court is not admissible to prove the truth of what s/he said. That rule does not apply when the testimony is about what the person charged said.
:[4]              You have heard (NOW)testify that (NOA) said (specify). This testimony is admissible as evidence of the truth of what (NOA) said. It is up to you to decide whether you believe (NOA) made the statement or any part of it.
|
}}

{{quotation1|
7.3 Out of Court Statements of Person Charged (Joint Trial)
:Note[1]
:(Last revised March 2011)
:[1]              There is more than one person on trial, and there is a special rule about statements made by one of those persons outside the courtroom. You have just heard (NOW)’s testimony that (NOA1), said something. Whatever (NOA1) said, it cannot be used as evidence in reaching your verdict with respect to (NOA2), even if it describes something that (NOA2) allegedly said or did.

:[1] Trial judges should identify the witness who gives evidence of an utterance or statement of one accused that is not admissible in relation to any other. The instruction should be given in joint trials at the time that evidence of the utterance or statement is introduced. The instruction may be repeated for later witnesses or jurors may be reminded that the earlier instruction still applies.

This instruction requires modification or expansion where there is evidence upon which the jury could find adoption by an accused other than its maker. See, for example, R v Baron and Wertman (1976), 31 CCC (2d) 525, 538 (Ont. C.A.), per Martin J.A.

This instruction also requires modification or expansion where there is evidence upon which the jury could find that the statement was made in furtherance of a common unlawful purpose: see Mid-Trial 7.25.
|
}}

==Previous Convictions==
{{quotation1|
7.4 Previous Convictions of Accused Witness (Credibility)
:Note[1]
:(Last revised March 2011)

:[1]              You have heard that (NOA) has previously been convicted of a criminal offence. You must not use the fact that (NOA) has committed a crime in the past as evidence that s/he committed the crime charged.
:[2]              You may only consider the fact, (number) and nature of that (those) conviction(s) to help you decide how much or little of (NOA)’s testimony you will believe or rely on. Some convictions, for example ones that involve dishonesty, may be more significant than others. Consider, as well, whether the previous conviction is recent, or happened a number of years ago.
:[3]              A previous conviction does not necessarily make the evidence of (NOA) unbelievable or unreliable. It is only one of many factors for you to consider in your assessment of (NOA)’s testimony.

[1] This instruction applies to accused persons who testify and are examined or cross-examined about previous criminal convictions. See s. 12, Canada Evidence Act. It should not be given where the witness is not an accused. For non-accused witnesses, see Mid-Trial 7.5.

Where evidence of an accused’s prior conviction is used to rebut evidence of good character under the Code, s. 666, and counsel consider an instruction desirable, Final 11.5 may be adapted for use.

The caution contained in paragraph [1] might require emphasis or amplification in situations where, for example, the previous conviction is for the same or a similar offence.
|
}}

{{quotation1|
7.5 Previous Convictions of Non-Accused Witness (Credibility)
:Note[1]
:(Last revised March 2011)

:[1]              You have heard that (NOW) has previously been convicted of a criminal offence. You may use that conviction to help you decide how much or little of (NOW)’s evidence you will believe or rely on.
:[2]              Some convictions, for example ones that involve dishonesty, may be more significant than others. Consider, as well, whether the previous conviction is recent, or happened a number of years ago.
:[3]              A previous conviction does not necessarily make the evidence of (NOW) unbelievable or unreliable. It is only one of many factors for you to consider in your assessment of (NOW)’s testimony.

[1] See s. 12, Canada Evidence Act. It may not be necessary to give this instruction mid-trial. Counsel should be consulted. Where the non-accused witness is also alleged to be the perpetrator, and prior convictions are relied upon as evidence of disposition, Mid-Trial 7.6 should be given.
|
}}

==Third Party Suspects==
{{quotation1|
7.6 Evidence that a Non-Accused Third Party Committed the Offence
:Note[1]
:(Last revised March 2011)
:[1]              You have heard evidence suggesting that (NO3P) may have committed the offence charged.
:[2]              At the end of the case, it will be up to you to determine whether this evidence alone, or together with other evidence, raises a reasonable doubt about whether (NOA) committed the offence charged.

:[1] Any person charged with an offence may adduce evidence that tends to show that a co-accused committed the offence provided it has sufficient probative value to justify its admission: R v Grandinetti, [2005] 1 SCR 27. The evidence may be direct or circumstantial. It may include, but cannot consist only of, evidence of the third party’s motive or disposition to commit the offence. Without some other connection of the co-accused to the offence charged, however, evidence of motive or disposition is not admitted because it lacks probative value.

This instruction should only be given in cases where the trial judge is satisfied:
::(i)  that there is evidence, other than evidence of disposition, which sufficiently connects the co-accused to the offence charged to warrant admission of the disposition evidence; and
::(ii) that the proposed evidence, whether of expert opinion, discrete acts of extrinsic misconduct, or both, alone or together with other evidence, is relevant and of sufficient probative value on the issue of disposition to justify its admission.

See R v McMillan (1975), 23 CCC (2d) 160, 167-8 (Ont. C.A.), per Martin J.A.

|
}}

==Co-Accused Character==
{{quotation1|
7.7 Evidence of Disposition of Co-Accused
:Note[1]
:(Last revised March 2011)
:[1]              You have heard evidence about (NOA2)’s bad character. You may consider this evidence only for the purpose of deciding whether you have a reasonable doubt about whether (NOA1) committed the offence.
:[2]              You must not use it to infer that (NOA2) committed it.

:[1] Any person charged with an offence may adduce evidence that tends to show that a co-accused committed the offence provided it has sufficient probative value to justify its admission: R v Grandinetti, [2005] 1 SCR 27. The evidence may be direct or circumstantial. It may include, but cannot consist only of, evidence of the third party’s motive or disposition to commit the offence. Without some other connection of the co-accused to the offence charged, however, evidence of motive or disposition is not admitted because it lacks probative value.

This instruction should only be given in cases where the trial judge is satisfied:
:(i)  that there is evidence, other than evidence of disposition, which sufficiently connects the co-accused to the offence charged to warrant admission of the disposition evidence; and
:(ii) that the proposed evidence, whether of expert opinion, discrete acts of extrinsic misconduct, or both, alone or together with other evidence, is relevant and of sufficient probative value on the issue of disposition to justify its admission.

See R v McMillan (1975), 23 CCC (2d) 160, 167-8 (Ont. C.A.), per Martin J.A.
|
}}

==Criminal Record of Non-Accused==
{{quotation1|
7.8 Previous Convictions of Witness or Third Party as Evidence of Disposition
Note[1]

(Last revised March 2011)

:[1]              You have heard that (NOW)/(NO3P) might have committed the offence charged.
:[2]              (NOW)/(NO3P) has previously been convicted of (describe nature of prior conviction). This may help you decide whether (NOW)/(NO3P) is the sort of person who would commit the offence with which (NOA) is charged.
:[3]              Evidence that (NOW)/(NO3P) is the sort of person who would commit the offence charged might, along with other evidence, cause you to have a reasonable doubt about whether it was (NOA) who committed it.
:[4]              At the end of this trial, I will explain in greater detail how you may use this and other evidence relating to (NOW)/(NO3P).

[1] Any person charged with an offence may adduce evidence that tends to show that a co-accused committed the offence provided it has sufficient probative value to justify its admission: R v Grandinetti, [2005] 1 SCR 27. The evidence may be direct or circumstantial. It may include, but cannot consist only of, evidence of the third party’s motive or disposition to commit the offence. Without some other connection of the co-accused to the offence charged, however, evidence of motive or disposition is not admitted because it lacks probative value.

This instruction should only be given in cases where the trial judge is satisfied:
::(i)  that there is evidence, other than evidence of disposition, which sufficiently connects the co-accused to the offence charged to warrant admission of the disposition evidence; and
::(ii) that the proposed evidence, whether of expert opinion, discrete acts of extrinsic misconduct, or both, alone or together with other evidence, is relevant and of sufficient probative value on the issue of disposition to justify its admission.

See R v McMillan (1975), 23 CCC (2d) 160, 167-8 (Ont. C.A.), per Martin J.A.
|
}}

==Limited Evidence in Joint Trials==
{{quotation1|
7.9 General Instruction on Evidence of Limited Admissibility in Joint Trials
:Note[1]
:(Last revised March 2011)
:[1]              (Specify testimony or exhibit) relates only to (NOA). You must not consider it in deciding the case against anyone else (or specify name of other accused).

:[1] This general instruction may not be necessary where the judge decides to give a specific direction with respect to individual items or categories of evidence, such as, statements of a co-accused in a joint trial.
|
}}

==Prior Inconsistent Statements==
{{quotation1|
7.10 Prior Inconsistent Statements of Non-Accused Witness (Credibility)
:(Last revised March 2011)
:[1]              You have just heard (NOW)’s evidence regarding a prior statement. Common sense tells you that if a witness says one thing in the witness box, but has said something quite different on an earlier occasion, this may reduce the value of his or her evidence.
:[2]              You will have to decide whether (NOW), in fact, gave an earlier and different version from his/her testimony of the same events.
:[3]              If you do not find that s/he gave an earlier and different version of events, you may not use the alleged statement in assessing (NOW)’s credibility.
:[4]              If you find, after you have heard all the evidence, that (NOW) gave an earlier and different version of events, consider whether the differences are significant. You should consider any explanation the witness gives for the differences. You should also consider the fact, nature and extent of any differences when you decide whether to rely on (NOW)’s testimony.
:[5]              You must not use the earlier statement as evidence of what actually happened, unless you conclude that (NOW) accepted it as true while in the witness box.[1]
:[6]              Even then, as with any evidence, you will decide whether or how much to rely on it.

[1] This instruction is only appropriate where the prior inconsistent statement is not admissible for the truth of its contents under the principled approach to hearsay or some other exception to the hearsay rule. See Mid-Trial 7.12.
|
}}

{{quotation1|
7.11 Prior Inconsistent Statements of Accused Witness
:(Last revised March 2011)
:[1]              You have just heard (NOAW)’s evidence regarding a prior statement. Common sense tells you that if a witness says one thing in the witness box, but has said something quite different on an earlier occasion, this may reduce the value of his or her evidence.
:[2]              You will have to decide whether (NOAW), in fact, gave an earlier and different version from his/her testimony of the same events.[1]
:[3]              If you do not find that s/he gave an earlier and different version of events, you may not use the alleged statement in assessing (NOAW)’s credibility.
:[4]              If you find after you have heard all the evidence that the witness gave an earlier and different version of events, consider whether the differences are significant. You should consider any explanation the witness gives for the differences. You should also consider the fact, nature and extent of any differences when you decide whether to rely on (NOAW)’s testimony.
:[5]              Unlike statements by other witnesses, however, you may also consider what (NOAW) said before as evidence of what actually happened, even though (NOAW) does not testify that what s/he said before was true. It is for you to say how much or little you will rely on what (NOAW) said before as evidence of what actually happened.

[1] Where there is a live issue whether (NOAW) actually made the earlier statement, this paragraph should be prefaced with the following additional words: “(NOAW) has not admitted making the earlier statement attributed to him/her. If you are satisfied that (NOAW) actually did make the previous statement . . . “
|
}}

{{quotation1|
7.12 Prior Inconsistent Statements as Substantive Evidence (The R v B. (K.G.) Instruction)
:(Last revised March 2011)
:[1]              (NOW) has testified. S/he also made a previous statement (describe particulars of statement) that is an exhibit in this case. Normally, the previous statement of a witness may only be used by you to assess the credibility of the witness’s in-court testimony, but in the case of this witness, the situation is different. With this witness you may consider both what (NOW) said in his/her testimony and also his/her statement, as evidence of what actually happened.
:[2]              That is to say, you may consider the previous statement, exhibit (specify exhibit number) and (NOW)’s testimony as evidence of what actually took place. It is for you to say how much or little of (NOW)’s testimony or previous statement you will believe or rely on in deciding this case.[1]

[1] Paragraph [2] may not need to be given at this stage but should certainly be given as a final instruction.
|
}}

==Hearsay==
{{quotation1|
7.12A Non-hearsay Purpose
:(Last revised March 2011)
:[1]              You have heard evidence of what (NOD) said outside the courtroom. This evidence is not admitted for the truth of what was said because s/he is not here for you to see and be cross-examined.
:[2]              The evidence is admissible to explain (specify, e.g., why the witness did, say, or thought something).
|
}}

{{quotation1|
7.13 Statements of Declarant Not Called as Witness (Admissible Hearsay)
:Note[1]
:(Last revised March 2011)
:[1]              You have just heard (NOW) give evidence of what (NOD) said to him/her about (describe briefly hearsay statement). (NOD) is not here to testify.
:[2]              When you consider this evidence, you have to decide what, if anything, (NOD) said to (NOW). In deciding whether (NOD) said these things, or any of them, you should use your common sense. Consider the circumstances in which the conversation took place, and anything else that may make (NOW)’s evidence more or less believable.
:[3]              If you find that (NOW) has accurately reported any or all of what (NOD) said, you may rely on those parts of (NOW)’s testimony as evidence of what actually happened.
:[4]              You should be careful when you determine how much or little of this evidence you will believe or rely on. It might be less reliable than other evidence that has been given. (NOD) was not under oath or affirmation. S/he did not promise to tell the truth. You did not see or hear (NOD) testify. Unlike the witnesses who testified before you, s/he could not be cross-examined.

:[1] Further instruction may be required where the declarant has been declared incompetent, rather than simply not called as a witness.

This instruction is appropriate in cases in which a statement of an absent hearsay declarant has been introduced through a witness who is the hearsay recipient and admitted otherwise than in accordance with R v B. (K.G.), [1993] 1 SCR 740. The fact situations in R v Khan, [1990] 2 SCR 531 and R v Smith, [1992] 2 SCR 915 exemplify the circumstances in which this instruction may be helpful.
|
}}

==Similar Fact Evidence==
{{quotation1|
7.14 Evidence of Similar Acts (Acts not Charged)
:Note[1]

(Last revised March 2011)
:[1]              You are trying (NOA) on a charge of (specify). You are not trying him/her for any other crime. However, you have heard evidence suggesting that (NOA) has (briefly specify conduct admitted as similar act evidence). You must not assume that (NOA) is guilty of the offence charged just because s/he may have committed other offences or engaged in other bad conduct in the past. At the end of the trial, I will tell you how that evidence may be used.

:[1] This instruction is negative in nature. It advises jurors how they must not use evidence of similar acts and tells them that instructions on how they may use the evidence will be given at the end of the trial. Whether positive instructions, which advise jurors of the permitted use of the evidence, should be given is a matter that should be discussed with counsel. Positive instructions may be adapted from Final 11.15.

|
}}

==Recordings and Transcripts==
{{quotation1|
7.15 Audio Tape Recordings and Transcripts
:Note[1]
:(Last revised March 2011)
:[1]              You are about to hear a tape recording of (describe briefly nature of recording(s)). Please listen to it very carefully.
:[2]              Each of you has a transcript of the tape. The transcript is just an aid to help you follow the recording as it is played. The transcript is not evidence. Only the tape itself is evidence.
:[3]              If what you read on the transcript differs from what you hear on the tape, you are to go by what you hear for yourself, and not what you read in the transcript. If the speakers you hear are different from those identified in the transcript, it is for you to decide who was speaking and what was said. You decide this from what you hear on the recording and any other evidence given about the identity of the speakers.
:[4]              The tape will be available to you in the jury room, where you may listen to it if you need to. It is up to you to decide whether or how often you want to listen to it, or any part of it again. You may listen to it as many times as you wish to help you determine who is speaking and what s/he is saying.[2]

(Where transcripts are not filed as exhibits:)
:[5]              Please follow carefully as the tape is played in the courtroom. The tape will be available to you in the jury room, but not the transcript. We will collect the transcripts after the tape has been played.

(Where transcripts are filed as exhibits:)
:[6]              You may take the transcript with you to the jury room to help you determine what is actually on the tapes. But remember, if you find any differences between the tape and the transcript you must rely on what you hear on the tapes, rather than on what is in the transcripts.

(Where a single accused is a speaker and the common purpose exception to the hearsay rule does not apply, add:)
:[7]              In listening to this tape, be careful to distinguish between what (NOA) says and what others on the tape are saying. What the others say might help you figure out what (NOA) says and what his/her words mean. But (NOA) can be held responsible only for what s/he actually says, not for what others say. It is only what (NOA) said that is evidence concerning (NOA).
In other words, what others say may provide a context for understanding what (NOA) says; but only (NOA)’s words, as understood in this context, are evidence of what (NOA) has done or intended to do.

(Where more than one accused are speakers and the common purpose exception to the hearsay rule does not apply, add:)
:[8]              In listening to this tape, be careful to distinguish between what each person on trial says and what others on the tape are saying. Anything on the tape may be helpful in determining what a particular person says and what his/her words mean. But each person charged can be held responsible only for what s/he actually says, not for what others say. Only that person’s words, as understood in context

:[1] Audio tape recordings may include statements made by an accused to a person in authority, dying declarations, statements which are part of the res gestae, previous statements admitted for substantive purposes under R v B. (K.G.), [1993] 1 SCR 740 and declarations made in furtherance of a common unlawful purpose. The identity of the speaker may vary.

:[2] Where a trial judge decides that further instructions should be given mid-trial concerning the purpose for which the evidence may be used, the relevant final instructions may be adapted.
|
}}

{{quotation1|
7.16 Video Tape Recordings and Transcripts
:Note[1]
:(Last revised March 2011)
:[1]              You are going to see a video tape of (describe briefly nature of video tape). Please watch and listen to it very carefully.
:[2]              Each of you has a transcript of the tape. The transcript is just an aid to help you follow the recording as it is played. The tape is the only evidence. The transcript is just an aid. It is not evidence.
:[3]              If what you read on the transcript differs from what you hear or see on the tape, you are to go by what you hear or see on the tape. If the words you hear are different from those you read in the transcript, or if the speakers you hear or see are different from those identified in the transcript, it is for you to decide who was speaking and what was said. You decide this from what you hear and see on the tape and any other evidence given about the identity of the speakers.
:[4]              The tape will be available to you in the jury room, where you may watch it again if you need to. It is up to you to decide whether you want to watch it, or any part of it again. You may watch it as many times as you wish to help you determine who the speakers are and what they are saying.[2]

(Where transcripts are not filed as exhibits:)
:[5]              Please follow carefully as the tape is played in the courtroom. The tape will be available to you in the jury room, but not the transcript. We will collect the transcript after the tape has been played.
(Where transcripts are filed as exhibits:)
:[6]              You may take the transcript with you to the jury room to help you determine what is actually on the tapes. But remember, if you find any differences between the tape and the transcript you must rely on what you see or hear on the tapes, rather than on what is in the transcript.

(Where a single accused is a speaker and the common purpose exception to the hearsay rule does not apply, add:)
:[7]              As you watch and listen to this tape, be careful to distinguish between what (NOA) says and what others on the tape are saying. What the others say might help you figure out what (NOA) says and what his/her words mean. But (NOA) can be held responsible only for what s/he actually says, not for what others say. It is only what (NOA) said that is evidence concerning (NOA).
In other words, what others say may provide a context for understanding what (NOA) says; but only (NOA)’s words, as understood in this context, can be used as evidence of what (NOA) has done or intended to do.

(Where more than one accused are speakers and the common purpose exception to the hearsay rule does not apply, add:)
:[8]              As you watch and listen to this tape, be careful to distinguish between what each person on trial says and what others on the tape are saying. Anything on the tape may be helpful in determining what a particular person says and what his/her words mean. But each person charged can be held responsible only for what s/he actually says, not for what others say. In other words, what others say may provide a context for understanding what a particular person says; but only that person's words, as understood in this context, can be used as evidence of what that person has done or intended to do.

:[1] Video tape recordings may include statements made by an accused to a person in authority, dying declarations, statements which are part of the res gestae, previous statements admitted for substantive purposes under R v B. (K.G.), [1993] 1 SCR 740 and declarations made in furtherance of a common unlawful purpose. The identity of the speaker may vary.
:[2] Where a trial judge decides that further instructions should be given mid-trial concerning the purpose for which the evidence may be used, the relevant instructions may be adapted. A separate instruction is required where the video tape is admitted under Code, s. 715.1. See Final 11.21.

|
}}

==Statutory Exception to Hearsay==
{{quotation1|
7.17 Evidence Previously Given (s. 715)
:(s. 715)
:(Last revised March 2011)
:[1]              (NOW) gave evidence at (describe proceedings), but is not available to testify here. A court reporter recorded his/her testimony. It will now be read to (played for) you, and will be evidence for you to consider in this case.
:[2]              It is for you to decide how much or little of this evidence you will believe or rely on. You may believe some, none or all of it. In making that decision, remember that you did not see or hear this witness testify.
|
}}

==Expert Opinion Evidence==
{{quotation1|
7.18 Expert Opinion Evidence
:(Last revised March 2011)
:[1]              Normally, witnesses may only testify about what they have seen or heard, and may not testify about their opinions. In the case of (NOW), however, because of his/her special training, education and experience, s/he will be permitted to give an opinion about (specify).
:[2]              Although (NOW) will be permitted to give his/her opinion, it is up to you to decide the extent to which you will rely on it. Here are some things to consider as (NOW) testifies:
::§  (NOW)’s qualifications and experience;
::§  the reasons given for the opinion;
::§  the suitability of the methods used;
::§  whether (NOW) is impartial; and
::§  the other evidence in the case.
:It is up to you to decide how much or little to rely on (NOW)’s opinion.

:[3]              (NOW) may be asked to assume or rely on certain facts in giving his/her opinion. Those facts may be the same or different from what you later find as facts on the basis of all the evidence in this case. The closer the facts assumed or relied on by (NOW) are to the facts as you find them to be, the more helpful (NOW)’s opinion may be to you. To the extent (NOW) relies on facts that you do not find supported by the evidence, you may find (NOW)’s opinion less helpful.
|
}}

==Demonstrative Aids==
{{quotation1|
7.19 Demonstrative Aids used by Counsel
:Note[1]
:(Last revised March 2011)
:[1]              The Crown/defence has used (specify - charts, summaries, power point or other) to help illustrate or explain some of the evidence. They are not exhibits. They are not evidence in this case. They will not go to the jury room with you. These were used for convenience.
:[2]              You must make your findings of fact from the evidence given at trial, not from (specify - charts, summaries, power point or other).

:[1] This mid-trial instruction is not necessary if the demonstrative aids have been filed as exhibits. It may be required, however, where counsel use demonstrative aids, not filed as exhibits, in their closing addresses to the jury.
|
}}

==Evidence of Prior Sexual Activity==
{{quotation1|
7.20 Evidence of Other Sexual Activity (ss. 276; 276.4)
:(ss. 276; 276.4)
:Note[1]
:(Last revised January 2018)

:[1]              You have heard evidence that (NOC) (describe briefly nature of sexual activity) with (specify name of other party) on (specify date, or otherwise identify occasion).
:[2]              The law restricts the purposes for which evidence of a person’s prior sexual conduct may be used. You may use this evidence only to help you (specify limited purpose for which the evidence was ruled admissible on the s. 276 application).
:[3]              You may not use this evidence for any other purpose. Specifically, you must not use this evidence to infer that, because of the sexual nature of what happened, (NOC) is more likely to have consented to the sexual activity with which (NOA) is charged or that (NOC) is less worthy of belief. These inferences are based on myths about sexuality that have no place in our law.

:[1] This instruction is mandatory under Code, s. 276.4. When consent is not an issue (e.g., when the complainant is under the age of sixteen) (see s. 150.1(1)), omit the words “is more likely to have consented to the sexual activity that forms the subject matter of the charge or to infer that s/he.”
|
}}

==Obstructed View and Sequestered Testimony==
{{quotation1|
7.21 Evidence of Children (Obstructed view and sequestered testimony, ss. 486.2)
:(ss. 486.2)
:Note[1]
:(Last revised March 2011)
:[1]              (NOW) will testify from (specify - behind a screen or outside the court room).
:[2]              This procedure is used simply to help young people give evidence by providing comfortable surroundings for them to do so. The fact that we are using this procedure has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of (NOA). It is not evidence of anything.

:[1] This instruction may be modified for use in cases in which the presiding judge permits a support person to be present and close to the child witness while testifying. See Code, s. 486.1.
|
}}

==Evidence of Children==
{{quotation1|
7.22 Evidence of Children (Videotaped Complaint – s. 715.1)
:(s. 715.1)
:Note[1]
:(Last revised March 2011)
:[1]              (NOW) testified in this case. You also watched a video in which s/he described what s/he says happened. We permit this procedure for young witnesses to help them present their testimony.
:[2]              The content of that recording is part of his/her testimony in court. But it is for you to decide how much or little you will rely on (NOW)’s testimony including what s/he said on the video.

:[1] The general instruction concerning the evidence of children is Final 11.19 below.
|
}}

==Guilty Plea of Another Accused==
{{quotation1|
7.23 Plea of Guilty of Another
:Note[1]
:(Last revised March 2011)

:[1]              In this case, (NOW) and (NOA) have each been charged with (specify offence). (NOW) has pleaded guilty to (specify offence). (NOA) has pleaded not guilty.
:[2]              (NOW)'s guilty plea has no bearing on whether (NOA) is guilty. You must not think that because (NOW) has pleaded guilty, (NOA) must be guilty as well.[2]

:[1] This instruction should only be given in relation to prosecution witnesses. See, for example, R v Hoilett (1991), 4 CR (4th) 372 (Ont. C.A.).

:[2] This instruction is not intended as a substitute for a Vetrovec warning. See R v Vetrovec, [1982] 1 SCR 811. It may require modification where a Vetrovec warning is given and includes reference to the reasons underlying the plea and/or testifying against the accused. For a Vetrovec warning, see Final 11.23.
|
}}

==Outstanding Charges Against Crown Witness==
{{quotation1|
7.24 Outstanding Charges Against Prosecution Witness
:Note[1]
:(Last revised March 2011)
:[1]              This Crown witness (or, (NOW)) is charged with (briefly describe offence charged). The trial has not yet been held.
:[2]              When assessing the weight you give to (NOW)’s evidence, you should carefully consider whether (NOW) may have a motive to testify favourably for the Crown in this trial because s/he may believe that this will help with his/her own case.

:[1] This instruction should only be given in relation to prosecution witnesses. See, for example, R v Hoilett (1991), 4 CR (4th) 372 (Ont. C.A.); Titus v The Queen, [1983] 1 SCR 259.

This instruction is not intended as a substitute for a Vetrovec warning. See R v Vetrovec, [1982] 1 SCR 811 and Final 11.23.
|
}}

==Co-Conspirator's Exception to Hearsay==
{{quotation1|
7.25 Common Purpose Exception to Hearsay Rule (Co-conspirator’s exception)
:(Last revised March 2011)
:[1]              You have heard evidence of statements made out of court by: ((NOA1), (NOA2), other alleged co-conspirators, other alleged unindicted co-conspirators, or alleged participants in the common design). There are two general rules that apply to out-of-court statements.
:[2]              The two general rules are:
::1.    an out-of-court statement by anyone other than a person charged is not evidence of the truth of the statement; and
::2.    an out-of-court statement made by a person charged may be considered as evidence of the truth of the statement, but only in relation to that person.
:[3]              However, there are special rules that may apply to evidence of statements made out of court by: ((NOA1), (NOA2), other alleged co-conspirators, other alleged unindicted co-conspirators, or alleged participants in the common design). At the end of the trial I will give you a complete explanation of these rules.
|
}}

==Preliminary Inquiry==
{{quotation1|
7.26 Preliminary Inquiry
:(Last revised March 2011)
:[1]              Counsel is about to (has) question(ed) (NOW) regarding evidence s/he gave on an earlier occasion at a preliminary inquiry. A preliminary inquiry is a routine procedure where some witnesses testify under oath or affirmation. Their evidence is recorded and produced in a transcript to assist the lawyers to prepare for trial.
:[2]              The fact there was a preliminary inquiry in this case has nothing to do with your determination of (NOA)’s guilt or innocence.
|
}}

==Toxic Evidence==
{{quotation1|
7.27 Toxic Evidence
:(June 2017)

:[1]              The next witness will be (specify). S/he will be (specify – e.g., showing you photos from the autopsy to help you understand the cause of death). You may find the testimony of this witness to be graphic (or specify, e.g., upsetting). We will look at the (specify, e.g., photos) only as necessary. We will take a break after hearing this testimony. Should you require an additional break when we are considering this evidence, please put up your hand up and let me know.
|
}}