Essay on relevancy and admissibility of evidence in court:
There are facts that are relevant to the issue and can be proved. On the other end there are those facts which cannot be proved on the ground that they are irrelevant to the issue. Such facts include the character of the accused and are broken down into facts of character evidence, similar fact, previous consistent and evidence of previous conviction. The general rule of law regarding the irrelevant facts is that they are inadmissible.
Character evidence is regarded as irrelevant fact and the general rule of law is that it is inadmissible in court. There are, however, exceptions to the general rule where character evidence becomes admissible. In a situation where the accused adduces evidence to establish his own good character, he becomes exposed to attack by prosecution who then tries to prove a point that the accused is of bad character. Another, instance, is where the nature of the accused’s defence is to attack the character of either the prosecutor or witnesses for prosecution. For an example, the accused might allege that the prosecutor is being vindictive because he refused to pay the prosecutor money to let him off the hook.
Evidence of similar fact is evidence of the past bad conduct which refers to a particular, immoral or illegal conduct of a party which has nothing to do with the issue in dispute but similar to a fact in issue. The general rule is that that the accused has had bad behaviour and character is inadmissible because the effect of evidence may be unduly prejudicial and it has the potential of raising collateral issues which may be distracting, expensive and time consuming for the court. Similar fact may also encourage the police complacence to find the real perpetrator but instead discover someone with a possible opportunity and a record of strikingly similar facts.
The circumstances, under which similar fact evidence is allowable is where evidence is adduced to negate a defence of accident, mistake or lack of criminal intent. For an example, the case of R. v. Smith,II C.A.R. the accused charged with murder of his bride claimed that she had accidentally drowned in the bath. To negate the accused’s evidence, the court held that evidence of similar facts that former wives of the accused had met their death in similar circumstances was admissible. Another exception where similar fact is admissible is evidence to identify the accused or to show his participation in the crime charged. For instance, In the case of R. v. Sebeso, 1943 A.D, the court held that evidence of the proved association of the three accused in two of the three counts was admissible to rebut the alibis on the other count and that the three committed the count.
A previous consistent statement is a written or oral statement made by a witness on an earlier occasion which corresponds with the witness’ account in court. The general rule about these statements is that they are inadmissible in court. The reasons are that the statement can easily be manufactured and a resourceful witness can repeat a lie as often as the truth to a number of peoplet. In the case of R. v. Roberts (1942).where the accused was being charged with murdering a girlfriend by shooting her, two days after the shooting he had told his father what his defence would be. In his defence he wanted the evidence of conversation between him and his father to be adduced to rebut his defence but the judge disallowed it on the ground that it amounted to no more than a previous consistent statement.
The other character evidence is evidence of previous convictions which refers to past acts and misconduct. The law provides that evidence tending to show that an accused person has committed a crime other than the one in dispute is inadmissible. An exception to this rule is where the accused is charged with receiving stolen property. In this circumstance the law provides that if the accused is in possession of stolen goods within 12 months prior to the present charge, such evidence becomes relevant to show that in the present the accused new that the property was stolen or obtained by means of an offence. Another exception is where the evidence previous convictions is required in order to establish the accused’s guilt. For an example, evidence which reveals the cause of the accused’s detention is admissible where he is being charged for escaping from the prison.
The bottom line regarding character evidence at law is that it is inadmissible. However, there are exceptions to this rule where certain requirements are fulfilled. This helps the courts not to lose focus on the fact in dispute.
