NCJ Number
84741
Date Published
1981
Length
17 pages
Annotation
This paper examines the problem of assuring a fair trial for persons with prior criminal records, with emphasis on three recent decisions of the Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal (Australia).
Abstract
Over the years, a large body of rules has developed to ensure that a jury will generally have no knowledge of the fact that the accused person has prior convictions, has committed other offenses, or is of bad character. In addition, legislation has been enacted to protect accused persons from being cross-examined on these matters unless the defense is conducted in a particular way. The protection afforded by these rules of evidence has been eroded significantly by certain developments in common law doctrine. In the Keeley and Alexander case, for example, witnesses identified the suspects solely from police photographs. No identification parades were held. The decision in this case may encourage the police to delay in making an arrest, even when there are grounds for doing so, in order to have the identifying witness look at photographs rather than a lineup. This case is still on appeal, however. In the Chee case, the Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal took the view that evidence of prior acts of misconduct involving similar facts could be admitted even if it were only probative rather than strongly probative. However, the New South Wales Court of Appeal recently took the more traditional position that strong probative value was required. In the Cutajar case, the court used highly suspect reasoning in eliminating the accused person's protection against the admission of previous evidence regarding his character. A total of 8 reference notes are provided.