Français
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.
Print

3.5 Direct and Circumstantial Evidence

Note[18]

(Last revised March 2011)

[1]              I will now explain the meaning of the terms “direct evidence” and “circumstantial evidence.”

[2]              Suppose the question is whether it was raining outside. A witness testifies that he or she saw it raining outside. That is direct evidence of the fact that it was raining.

[3]              Contrast this with a witness who testifies that he or she saw someone enter the courthouse wearing a raincoat and carrying an umbrella, both dripping wet. You might infer from this testimony that it was raining outside. This is circumstantial evidence of the fact that it was raining outside.

[4]              Exhibits may also provide direct or circumstantial evidence.

[5]              In making your decision, you can take both kinds of evidence into account. Your job is to decide what conclusions you will reach based upon the evidence as a whole, both direct and circumstantial.

[18] These are optional instructions. Many judges take the view that an instruction on the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is unnecessary in opening to the jury. Reference to it in the summing-up is adequate. Others take the position that some instruction is required so that jurors understand:

(i) that there need not be direct evidence of every essential element of the offence charged;

(ii) that the essential elements of the offence may be proved by circumstantial evidence;

(iii) that circumstantial evidence involves drawing an inference; and,

(iv) that circumstantial evidence is perfectly good evidence, not an inferior form of proof.