The rule also applies to evidence of several complainants reporting similar events used for the purpose of mutual confirmation of evidence, as well as to similar factual witnesses. [15] The requirements to consider similar factual evidence are a matter of law and may be examined against a measure of accuracy. [20] However, the conclusions of a similar factual analysis of the law are justified “with a high degree of consideration” and should only be modified if “the analysis is unreasonable or if there is an error of law or misunderstanding of the physical evidence.” [21] It was also conclusive to admit evidence of an abusive relationship that would justify the hostility between the complainant and the accused. [1] Although Canadian law refers to the term “similar factual evidence”, this term has been found to be misleading. [7] Other terms for the rule are “inglorious past conduct,” “previous bad deeds,” or “similar crimes.” However, such an event should carry weight. [7] What would be called “generic similarities” require less consideration. Although prior to these changes, the Rosemary West trial in 1995 was cited as an example, in which similar factual evidence was crucial to the prosecution. [2] Evidence of the defendant`s past wrongdoing is admissible if the prosecution, after weighing the probabilities, satisfies the judge that, in the context of the individual case, the probative value of the evidence in relation to a particular issue outweighs its potential disadvantage and therefore justifies its hypothesis. In cases of sexual assault, “the similarities and differences between sexual acts are. often not as convincing as the circumstances of the incidents.
[1] Evidence of collusion may reduce or eliminate the probative value of the witness` testimony because it is no longer independent and persuasive. [4] In a multi-count indictment with different complainants, the Crown may attempt to use evidence covering several counts as similar factual evidence. [2] These applications are often dealt with at the end of the Crown`s evidence. [3] Or at the end of the procedure. [4] Under Rule 404 of the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence, proof of a person`s personality or character trait is not admissible to prove that the person acted in accordance with the personality or character trait on a particular occasion.