Law360 Canada ( September 5, 2025, 1:33 PM EDT) -- Appeal by KR from trial judge’s decision to admit an out-of-court statement as evidence under the principled exception to the hearsay rule based on its procedural reliability only. KR was found guilty of second-degree murder. His conviction depended on the admission of the videorecorded statement of 13-year-old ET, who was interviewed by a police officer as a suspect in the same murder. Given ET’s age, the police officer did not administer an oath but warned ET about the consequences of failing to tell the truth. During the interview, ET named KR as the person who attacked the victim. The amount of detail given by ET demonstrated that he was clearly present, and very likely participated in the attack. ET’s statement led the police to KR and to the discovery of circumstantial evidence implicating him. At the trial, the Crown applied to admit the statement, but ET refused to identify himself on the video and fled the courtroom. The Crown’s application turned into a voir dire to determine the admissibility of ET’s statement under the principled exception to the hearsay rule. The trial judge admitted ET’s statement based on its procedural reliability only. She considered the circumstances under which the statement was made and found a sufficient substitute for in-court cross-examination. KR submitted that past authority required the trial judge to hold that in-court cross-examination was necessary before ET’s statement could be admitted under the principled exception to the hearsay rule. He submitted that a verdict of acquittal should be directed. The Crown agreed that some form of cross-examination was necessary but argued that the police questioning during the taking of the statement satisfied that requirement....