Charges: Murder x 1.
Case type: Voir dire.
Facts: The accused was on trial for murdering his de facto partner. During the relationship, neither the victim nor the police had obtained an AVO against the accused, despite evidence of injuries caused by the accused (). The Crown sought to adduce hearsay evidence of statements the victim had made to her doctor. In a discussion about the victim taking out an AVO, the victim had said ‘I don’t deserve it’ and ‘don’t want to cause trouble’ ().
Issues: Whether the evidence was admissible.
Decision and Reasoning: The evidence was admitted.
The statements fell within an exception to the hearsay rule because they were evidence of the victim’s state of mind (s 66A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)) (). Nevertheless, the accused argued that the statements should not be admitted for three reasons:
However, Schmidt J held that the statements should be admitted for three reasons:
Therefore, the statements were not unfairly prejudicial ().