Prior Inconsistent Statements as Substantive Evidence (The R. v. B. (K.G.) Instruction)

Note: Specimen jury instructions serve as a template that trial judges must adapt to the particular circumstances of each trial, not simply read out in whole. They are not designed to be delivered "as-is." More information about the use of specimen instructions is found in the Preface and A Note to Users, which you can find here.

7.12 Prior Inconsistent Statements as Substantive Evidence (The R. v. B. (K.G.) Instruction)

(Last revised March 2011)

[1] (NOW) has testified. S/he also made a previous statement (describe particulars of statement) that is an exhibit in this case. Normally, the previous statement of a witness may only be used by you to assess the credibility of the witness’s in-court testimony, but in the case of this witness, the situation is different. With this witness you may consider both what (NOW) said in his/her testimony and also his/her statement, as evidence of what actually happened.

[2] That is to say, you may consider the previous statement, exhibit (specify exhibit number) and (NOW)’s testimony as evidence of what actually took place. It is for you to say how much or little of (NOW)’s testimony or previous statement you will believe or rely on in deciding this case.^{^[39]}

^{^[39]} Paragraph [2] may not need to be given at this stage but should certainly be given as a final instruction.

7.12 Prior Inconsistent Statements as Substantive Evidence (The R. v. B. (K.G.) Instruction)

[2] That is to say, you may consider the previous statement, exhibit (specify exhibit number) and (NOW)’s testimony as evidence of what actually took place. It is for you to say how much or little of (NOW)’s testimony or previous statement you will believe or rely on in deciding this case.[39]