|
Internet - Evidence. R. v. Taylor
In R. v. Taylor (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a criminal appeal, this brought against the "conviction for the first degree murder of his wife".
Here the court illustrates how internet search engine searches and computer records may used as evidence - and tendency evidence issues that it may give rise too, sometimes apparently uncritically:[5] There was a formidable body of evidence from which the jury could conclude that the appellant planned to kill Wendy. In the months before the killing, the appellant conducted various internet searches, including: “fast acting natural poisons”; “thallium poisoning”; “drugs that cause a heart attack”; “how to pull off the perfect murder”; and “the best way to kill your wife”. On the night in question, the appellant was working on a job a couple of hours from their home. He unexpectedly decided to come home. The appellant turned his phone off and did not bring it with him. He avoided toll roads on his way to and from the killing.
[6] This appeal turns largely on other evidence introduced by the Crown that the appellant contends was problematic. The police seized documents from the appellant’s two laptop computers. One document was entitled “Iain’s list of lies to Sonja” (“the List”) in which he itemized his deceptions to Ms. Aldred. The List included a graphic and vulgar description of the appellant’s sexual exploits (“Item 21”), along with a reflection on his church life (“Item 29”). The police also discovered an internet browser bookmark for an article entitled “Compulsive Liar Treatment”.
[7] No objection was made to the admission of these pieces of evidence before they were led. However, during the cross-examination of the appellant about the List, the trial judge, without prompting, expressed concern that Item 21 should not have been admitted. He prohibited the Crown from cross-examining the appellant on it. He also gave a cautionary instruction about Item 21 in his final instructions to the jury. Even so, an unredacted, poster-sized version of the List was made an exhibit and was in the jury room during deliberations.
....
(2) The Internet Searches
[20] The appellant repeatedly searched the internet about how to kill his wife.
[21] The appellant started his internet searches about poisons and other methods to kill his wife within days of meeting Ms. Aldred. His initial searches, from late June and early July of 2013, included “fast acting natural poisons”, “drugs that cause a heart attack” and “how to pull off the perfect murder”.
[22] After the text message fiasco, the intensity of the appellant’s internet searches increased. On August 16, 2013 – four days after the appellant accidentally sent the text to Ms. Aldred – the appellant searched “the best way to kill your wife”, “the best way to kill your spouse”, “untraceable poisons”, “Easy to Make Poisons”, and “the perfect murder”. The appellant also accessed webpages including “How to: Murder Your Wife on a Budget”, “KILLMYWIFE.COM” and “If You’re Going To Kill Your Spouse, You Probably Shouldn’t Google ‘How To Commit Murder’”.
....
(2) The Bookmarked Webpage
[53] In addition to the appellant’s “how to” and related internet searches, the Crown introduced evidence that the appellant accessed and bookmarked an article entitled “Compulsive Liar Treatment.” A screen shot of the article was included on a PowerPoint slide introduced through the evidence of the officer who examined the appellant’s computers. The PowerPoint presentation was made a numbered exhibit. The trial Crown referred to it in her closing address.
(3) The Presentation of the Evidence
[54] A number of items of evidence derived from the search of the appellant’s computers were introduced through the officer who performed the search – Det.-Sgt. James Falconer. He presented the evidence of the appellant’s online searches and the compulsive liar bookmark. He was also asked to read some items from the List.
[55] The Crown had Ms. Aldred read to the jury her extensive correspondence with the appellant, starting when they met on eHarmony. The Crown also asked Ms. Aldred to read from the List. In particular, she was made to read Item 21. Ms. Aldred had never seen this document before testifying. Before reading Item 21 aloud, Ms. Aldred said, “I don’t know that I can read this”. After reading a portion of the item, she asked the Crown if she really had to read it. The Crown told her that she did. Once she finished reading the item, Ms. Aldred said, “That was never, ever spoken to me.”
[56] During a break after Ms. Aldred’s testimony, defence counsel objected to the manner in which the evidence was presented. He submitted that the evidence was admissible, but that it was improper to introduce it through Ms. Aldred because she had not seen the document before. The Crown submitted that this method was appropriate because the document contained the appellant’s “admissions against interest”. The trial judge dismissed the objection, although he did acknowledge the impact of reading Item 21 “on the witness and perhaps some adverse impact it may have made on the jury.” He said, “If that is an issue the defence wishes to promote, I will incorporate it in my charge.”
[57] The issue arose again during the cross-examination of the appellant, when the Crown directed him to Item 21. On his own initiative, the trial judge excused the jury and said the following:I am loathe to interrupt cross-examination, but I think I have to at this point because I’ve been concerned with paragraph 21 for some time since it’s been introduced… very concerned about it because this jury has to be instructed, despite the loathsome, degrading, vulgar comments made and statements made in paragraph 21, despite the fact that they describe sexual conduct, true, imagined or otherwise, which is by some standards highly immoral, despicable, the issue in this case is not whether this man is a philanderer or whether he has any moral compass or not. The issue in this case is has the Crown proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed first degree murder. [Emphasis added.]
During this colloquy, the trial judge noted that he had not been asked to edit any of Item 21. He further said, “I’m very concerned about this trial not being taken off the rails. I’m not here to protect the accused, but I am not going to have a party convicted because of immoral activity…That’s not going to happen in this court.” [58] The Crown said that “we plan on asking Your Honour to give a very strong limiting instruction on that.” The trial judge responded that he had already written one and “it will be strong and forceful.” The Crown made no further reference to Item 21 for the duration of the trial. However, the list was not redacted. It was entered as an exhibit. A poster board of the List was created and made an exhibit. This poster board followed the jury to the deliberation room.
[59] Throughout the trial, no concern was expressed about other items on the List, nor was any objection made to the compulsive liar bookmark. At paras 79-101 the court engages in a relevance and 'discreditable conduct' analysis of this evidence.
|
