INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Evidence of possession of stolen property within the past 12 months is admissible to prove knowledge of possession of stolen property.
SECTION WORDING
359(1) Where an accused is charged with an offence under section 342 or 354 or paragraph 356(1)(b), evidence is admissible at any stage of the proceedings to show that property other than the property that is the subject-matter of the proceedings (a) was found in the possession of the accused, and (b) was stolen within twelve months before the proceedings were commenced, and that evidence may be considered for the purpose of proving that the accused knew that the property that forms the subject-matter of the proceedings was stolen property.
EXPLANATION
Section 359(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada pertains to the admissibility of evidence in cases where an accused is charged with the theft, possession of stolen property, or robbery. This section allows for the admission of evidence, at any stage of the proceedings, that property other than the property that is the subject-matter of the proceedings was found in the possession of the accused and that it was stolen within twelve months before the proceedings were commenced. This evidence can be used to prove that the accused knew that the property that forms the subject-matter of the proceedings was stolen property. The reasoning behind this section is that if an accused is in possession of other stolen property, it indicates that they are acquainted with the stolen property and are more likely to be aware that the property in question was stolen. In other words, their possession of other stolen property is evidence that they are a thief and likely knew that the property in question was also stolen. The inclusion of this section in the Criminal Code of Canada helps prosecutors establish the knowledge element of theft-related offences. It is also a strategic tool for investigators to track down and recover stolen property, since the possession of other stolen property by an accused can lead to the recovery of other stolen items. Overall, Section 359(1) serves as a valuable provision in the Canadian criminal justice system, as it helps to ensure that the guilty are brought to justice for their crimes.
COMMENTARY
Section 359(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that allows for evidence to be admissible if an accused is charged with an offence related to theft or robbery. Specifically, the provision states that evidence can be presented to show that the accused was found in possession of property other than the subject property that is under investigation, and that the property was stolen within twelve months prior to the proceedings. This evidence can be used to prove that the accused knew that the property in question was stolen property. The purpose of section 359(1) is to allow for a more comprehensive examination of the accused's involvement in theft or robbery. By providing a broader scope of admissible evidence, the prosecution can strengthen their case and demonstrate a pattern of criminal activity. The provision emphasizes the significance of possession in relation to theft or robbery charges. Possession of stolen property creates a presumption of knowledge of the property's origins. This presumption allows for the prosecution to establish the accused's involvement in the criminal activity, even if there is no direct evidence linking them to the theft or robbery. Section 359(1) also highlights the importance of time in proving knowledge of stolen property. The provision requires that the stolen property in question be found within twelve months of the commencement of the proceedings. This time limit is significant because it indicates that the accused had recent knowledge of the property's origin. If the stolen property had been found outside of this timeframe, it may be more difficult to establish the accused's knowledge of the property's origins. Overall, section 359(1) is an essential provision that strengthens the ability of the prosecution to prove theft or robbery charges. By allowing for the admission of evidence related to possession of stolen property, the provision helps establish a pattern of criminal activity and presumption of knowledge. Additionally, the inclusion of the twelve-month timeframe creates a significant time limit that helps establish recent knowledge of the stolen property.
STRATEGY
Section 359(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the circumstances under which evidence of possession of stolen property may be admissible in criminal proceedings. This provision can have significant implications for both the Crown and the defence, and strategic considerations must be taken into account when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code. One strategy that may be employed by the Crown is to use evidence of possession of stolen property to prove knowledge on the part of the accused that the property that is the subject of the proceedings is stolen. By proving that the accused was in possession of stolen property that was not the subject of the proceedings but was stolen within twelve months of the commencement of the proceedings, the Crown can argue that the accused was aware or should have been aware that the property in question was also stolen. Another strategic consideration that the Crown must take into account is whether the evidence of possession of stolen property is probative enough to justify its admission into evidence. The fact that an accused possessed stolen property does not necessarily prove that they knew that other property was stolen. If the possession of stolen property is too remote or does not establish a sufficient connection to the property that is the subject of the proceedings, the evidence may be excluded as being more prejudicial than probative. From the defence perspective, counsel may consider challenging the admissibility of evidence of possession of stolen property on the basis that it is prejudicial and does not have sufficient probative value. One strategy may be to argue that the possession of stolen property was not connected to the property that is the subject of the proceedings, or that the accused had no knowledge that the property was stolen. Another strategy that may be employed by the defence is to challenge the timing of the theft of the stolen property. Section 359(1) requires that the stolen property must have been taken within twelve months before the commencement of the proceedings. If the Crown cannot prove that the stolen property was taken within this timeframe, the evidence may be excluded. Ultimately, the strategic considerations when dealing with section 359(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada will depend on the specific facts of each case. Both the Crown and the defence must carefully assess the admissibility and probative value of evidence of possession of stolen property, and develop arguments that will best serve their respective cases.