Smellie CJ
<doc> 1 IN THE GRAND COURT 2 HOLDEN AT GEORGE
3 CRIMINAL SIDE
4
5
6
7
8
9 In Open Court on 7
10
11 Before the Honour
12
13
Cav.
REGINA
V RAZIEL JEFFERS
August 2014
ble Chief Justice
Miss Chelll Richards OC and Miss Candia James for the
se No. IND. 15 OF 2011
crown
15
16
17
18
19 RU
20 1. A central is
21 evidence, wi
22 to her as to
23 make them.
24
25 2. The jury will
26 defendant w
27 Mauricio Du
28
29 3. The narrative
Mr. Brian O'Niel QC instructed by Ms Fiona Robertson on the Defendant
due for the jury in this case in their assessment to be the state of mind of the accused when he made it, whether his admissions were true, assuming they ac-
have to consider whether those admissions, if true,
cept that he did in fact
go to prove that the
to the death of Marcos
ted to excuse on the
30 basis that it
31 account by
32 Johnson or to
33
34 The Defend-
35 Duran had e
36 shooting Ma
37 Duran to the
38 waiting. Jol
Ruling On Admissibility State-
ment of Accomplice – Regina v Raziel Jeffers – IND NO. 15 OF 2011 (Chief Justice)
to contain a detailed
n, implicitly by Craig
of Marcos Duran.
to him that Marcos
derson had went off
Ebanks, shot Marcos
ch Craig Johnson was
home in West Bay.
Page 1 of 4 </doc>
<doc> 1 Johnson is s
2 the car be c
3
4 4. The jury wo
5 Jeffers by C
6 furtherance
7 defendant o
8 trace of in
9 Blackstone's
10 it is explain
11 enterprise,
12 as he
13 an exception
14 evidence on
15 declarations
16 himself (par
17 joint enterp
18 joint enterp
19 As the textt
20 against B, th
21 (1) t
22 a
23
24 (2) t
25 [n
The that B is not to be prejudiced by the act or statement to the hearsay rule insofar as it may involve reliance on the truth of their contents. Here the rule is a fortiori of Craig Johnson (party A) are adopted and reporte d B) in his admissions to Megan Martinez of his otherwise and as the truth of what actually happened during e
look also explains: In order for the act or statement a rule requires:
that the act or statement of A must be that of an accord furtherance of the common purpose; and
at independent evidence be adduced of the existence (joint enterprise) and the involvement in it of B.
elements of another, and
on A's statements as
applicable because the
said by the defendant
in involvement in the
ing the course of the
of A to be admissible
implic e in the course
ce of the conspiracy
26 Here as to (1)
27 the course o
28 Craig Johnso
29 completion
30 prosecution
31 defendant v.
32 attempted n
33 evidence of
34 and as discu
35 Craig Johnso
Ruling On Admissibility Statem </doc>
<doc> 1 change the 2 Martinez's
3 her.
4 As to (2) as 5 enterprise a
6 to Megan M
7 gun or guns
8 present in a
9 Martinez an
10 man was do
11 the case (s).
nature of the statement. What matters, is that the jury evidence of it as an accurate and reliable report of wit-
move - the need for independent evidence of the nd the involvement of the defendant in it - that compartinez to having planned the robbery, including his to others involved to be used "to frighten" the nun. (See also panic in the vicinity of the crime when he was at Miss Grant, then declaring that he was aware that", and from the other forensic scientific and circuit, as the telephone records) - all pointing to the
y might accept Megan
at the defendant told
existence of the joint
s from his admissions
having provided the
members man; his being
speculated up by Megan
t the "poor numbers
substantial evidence in
existence. In the joint
12 enterprise a
13
14 5. Counsel for a
15 a report oft
16
17 6. Counsel also
18 mind of the
19 concession in
20 enterprise. I
21 mind must
22 measure, no
23 to clean the
24 been told.
25
26 7. I am satisfied
and the defendant's involvement in it.
he defence accepts that the prosecution would be able to
if the incident was given to the defendant by Craig Johns,
concedes that the jury would be entitled to consider
defendant must have been affected by the report -
as also correct on the basis that it is alleged that he was
however, it would not be possible for the jury to assess
owever, it would not be possible for the jury to assess
whether he acted in account of what he had been told, without hearing what the account would the jury be able to determine whether he ac-
t that the narrative of the account related by Megan t that the defendant's involvement in it.
titled to establish that
in
whether the state of
which he heard. This
as a party to the joint
s whether his state of
it was. By the same
nt was. By the same
ed as he did in helping
end as what he had
Martinez as reported
27 to him by the
28 in furtheran-
29 have been re-
30 had earlier re-
31
32
33
Ruling On Admissibility State-
ment of Accomplice - Regina v. Raziel Jeffers - IND NO. 15 of 2013 (Chief Justice)
could by an accomplice
s state of mind must
Martinez and when he
in the car.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 4 </doc>
<doc> 1 Delivered in summary 2 issued with minor c
3
4
5
6
7 The Honourable Ju
8 CHIEF JUSTICE
nber 2014 (and finally
9
Ruling On Admissibility State
ment of Accomplice – Regina v Razel Jeffers – IND NO. 15 of 2013 (Chief Justice)
Page 4 of 4 </doc>