Post-Offence Conduct: Investigative Strategy

A police investigation of a crime may explore three stages of an offender's conduct: pre-offence activity, offence itself, and activity. The first stage includes elements involved in planning crime while second stage represents actus reus of crime. When examining third stage, however, it is important to note that there are four unique factors that encompass this aspect of investigation. First, offence has to be defined as ended in order for this stage to be initiated. Second, there must be an understanding that may include numerous acts. Third, time period for this stage is potentially wide-ranging time, bordered by end of crime and conclusion of trial. Fourth, included in this stage of investigation may include a response to police interrogation and, as such, it is only stage that includes structured, formal police questioning. Employing these four above factors, this paper explores contemporary case law that governs admissibility of at trial. The concept of post-offence conduct is a formal legal term defined by Supreme Court of Canada (S.C.C.), in R. v. White (1998). (1) It replaced traditional term consciousness of for clarity purposes due to fact that S.C.C. believed that consciousness of misled juries and undermined presumption of innocence. (2) Despite language change, however, basic concept remained same and, according to Courts, is defined as offender's after a crime that circumstantially infers guilt by proving at least one fact-in-issue. (3) It does not refer to all of accused's conduct. Instead, only behaviors and acts relevant to crime qualify as conduct. (4) A further analysis of Court opinions indicates that there are four definitional elements that comprise conduct: i) must emerge from accused and he or she must be source of evidence; ii) must occur after actus reus of crime concludes; iii) must be synonymous with circumstantial evidence; (5) and iv) circumstantial evidence must be relevant to one specific offence. (6) The general rule of admissibility resembles definition that, the of an accused person, that occurs after a crime, is admissible evidence if one condition is met--only when it provides circumstantial evidence of guilt. (7) Post-conduct admissibility depends on two elements: (i) it must be circumstantial evidence by nature, and; (ii) it must be relevant to offence by forming one logical conclusion of proof of at least one fact-in-issue. The S.C.C., in R. v. White (1998) (8), provided a sample list of concrete examples that constitute and are typically admissible under general rule of conduct. These include: i) flight from a crime scene; ii) flight from jurisdiction of a crime scene; iii) resistance to, or attempt to resist arrest; iv) failure to appear at trial; or v) acts of concealment including changing one's appearance, hiding or disposing of evidence, and deception such as lying or assuming a false name. It must be noted that this list is non-exhaustive and includes only common examples. The types of concrete circumstantial evidence that constitute may include a variety of additional behaviours. This paper examines a number of legal decisions related to within an investigative strategy. INVESTIGATIVE STRATEGY FRAMEWORK Discovering multiple behaviours is one of several goals of an investigative strategy. The time period varies but is generally defined as commencing with end of actus reus and concluding with end of trial. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.