INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Notice must be given to an accused if it is intended to prove possession of stolen property that is not the subject of the proceedings.
SECTION WORDING
359(2) Subsection (1) does not apply unless (a) at least three days notice in writing is given to the accused that in the proceedings it is intended to prove that property other than the property that is the subject-matter of the proceedings was found in his possession; and (b) the notice sets out the nature or description of the property and describes the person from whom it is alleged to have been stolen.
EXPLANATION
Section 359(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the process that must be followed in cases where an accused individual is facing charges related to the possession of stolen property. The section sets out specific notice requirements that must be met in order for evidence of other stolen property to be admissible in court. Essentially, before evidence of additional stolen property can be introduced, the accused must be given three days' written notice that the prosecution intends to prove the existence of such property. Additionally, the notice must provide a description of the property in question, as well as information about the person from whom it is alleged to have been stolen. One of the key purposes of Section 359(2) is to ensure that the accused has adequate time to prepare his or her defense in light of the new information. This notice requirement is designed to prevent surprises in the courtroom and to help ensure that any evidence presented is within the scope of the accused's charges. By requiring the prosecution to provide detailed information about any additional stolen property that may be introduced as evidence, the accused is better able to assess the strength of the case against them and to prepare a defense accordingly. Overall, Section 359(2) is an important component of Canada's criminal justice system. It helps ensure that accused individuals are afforded due process and that the outcome of the trial is determined based on admissible and relevant evidence. By setting out specific notice requirements for certain types of evidence, this section of the Criminal Code of Canada promotes fairness and transparency in the criminal justice system.
COMMENTARY
Section 359 of the Criminal Code of Canada sets out the requirements for the admissibility of evidence of possession of stolen property in criminal proceedings. Subsection (1) of this section establishes a rebuttable presumption that where an accused person is in possession of property that has recently been stolen, that person knew or ought to have known that the property was stolen. However, subsection (2) of this section sets out some important limitations on the applicability of this presumption. Subsection (2) of this section requires that notice must be given to the accused person at least three days in advance of the trial if the prosecution intends to rely on evidence of other stolen property found in the accused's possession. This notice must also set out the nature or description of the property and describe the person from whom it is alleged to have been stolen. The requirement of notice is an important safeguard for the accused's procedural rights. It allows them to prepare a defence against the allegation of possession of stolen goods and to ensure that they are not taken by surprise at trial. It also limits the prosecution's ability to rely on evidence of other stolen goods to prove the accused's guilt, preventing them from using this evidence as a sort of character evidence that could be prejudicial to the accused. The requirement for notice also puts the prosecution on notice to ensure that the evidence they are relying on to prove possession of stolen property is relevant and admissible. It serves as a check on the prosecution's case and ensures that they are not relying on irrelevant or prejudicial evidence. However, there are some potential drawbacks to the notice requirement in this section. For example, it is possible that the accused might not receive the notice before the three day cutoff period. This could happen because the notice might not be delivered or received until after the deadline, or because the accused might not be capable of receiving the notice within the given timeframe. Another potential problem is that the notice requirement does not apply in every case, but only when the prosecution intends to prove possession of other stolen goods. This means that in cases where the prosecution does not have evidence of any other stolen goods, the accused would not be entitled to notice and could be taken by surprise at trial. In these cases, the accused would not have an opportunity to rebut the presumption of knowledge or to prepare a defence against the allegation of possession of stolen goods. Overall, the notice requirement in section 359(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important safeguard that ensures that accused persons are given an opportunity to prepare a defence and to prevent the prosecution from introducing evidence that could be irrelevant or prejudicial. However, there are some potential issues with the notice requirement that must be taken into account to ensure that it serves its intended purpose effectively.
STRATEGY
Section 359(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada imposes an important requirement for prosecutors intending to prove that an accused had stolen property in their possession during court proceedings. The requirement is aimed at protecting the rights of the accused by ensuring that they are made aware of the evidence against them in advance. In this article, we will discuss some strategic considerations when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code and some of the strategies that could be employed. The first strategic consideration when dealing with Section 359(2) is the importance of complying with the notice requirement. Failure to comply with the notice requirement can result in the exclusion of the evidence obtained from the possession of the accused, which can significantly weaken the case against them. Therefore, it is essential to ensure that notice is given at least three days before the trial, and it should be served in writing to the accused or their counsel. A good strategy to employ when serving notice under Section 359(2) is to ensure that it is comprehensive and detailed. The notice must describe the person from whom the property is alleged to have been stolen and provide a clear description of the property. The notice should also state the location where the property was found and any other relevant information that may assist the accused and their counsel in preparing their defense. Providing comprehensive notice gives the accused and their counsel sufficient time to prepare their defense and explore the admissibility of the stolen property in question. Another strategic consideration when dealing with Section 359(2) is the timing of delivering the notice. At times, the prosecution may decide to provide notice to the accused at the eleventh hour, hoping to catch them off guard. But, this strategy comes with significant risks. Late notices may not give the accused and their counsel sufficient time to prepare their defense in advance, which may result in the postponement of the trial, causing inconvenience to the court, the accused, and their counsel. Therefore, it is essential to serve the notice promptly to avoid these problems and ensure a smooth trial process. In conclusion, Section 359(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada requires that an accused is given notice of any stolen property found in their possession during court proceedings. Complying with the notice requirement is essential as it can mean the difference between obtaining a conviction or an acquittal. Thus, providing comprehensive and timely notice is critical. By doing so, the accused and their counsel can have sufficient time to prepare their defense adequately, and the trial can proceed without hitches.