4th day of deliberations | Jurors at Hoggard trial ask another question

(Toronto) Jurors in the sexual assault trial of Canadian musician Jacob Hoggard asked for more help from the court on Friday as deliberations continued for a fourth day.

Posted at 1:41 p.m.

Paola Loriggio
The Canadian Press

The jury set to decide the fate of the Hedley singer asked Thursday night how they could use evidence of a phone call between Hoggard and the second plaintiff that was recorded without the latter’s knowledge days after the alleged incident.

Ontario Superior Court Judge Gillian Roberts previously said the call could be used to assess the complainant’s behavior and state of mind.

On Friday, jurors sought clarification on the legal definition of “state of mind” and how to apply it in assessing the appeal.

Justice Roberts told them that state of mind is defined as “beliefs, perceptions, emotions or intention”.

Jurors could, but were not required to, infer from the call that the second complainant was upset, the judge told them. If they do, then they should be wondering why she was upset, she explained.

The Crown alleges the complainant was upset because she was sexually assaulted, while the defense argues it was because she was humiliated, Judge Roberts said.

“If you find that she is upset because she was sexually assaulted, then you can consider her upset state as circumstantial evidence tending to support her credibility of having been sexually assaulted,” the judge said. . Circumstantial evidence only makes sense in light of the totality of the evidence, she added.

Hoggard, 37, pleaded not guilty to two counts of sexual assault causing bodily harm and one of sexual interference, a charge that refers to sexually touching a person under the age of 16.

The Crown alleges that Hoggard repeatedly raped a teenage fan and a young woman from Ottawa in separate incidents in the fall of 2016. It further alleges that he groped the teenager after a performance of Hedley in April 2016, when she was 15.

The defense argues that the touching did not take place and that the two sexual encounters were consensual. Defense attorneys argue that the plaintiffs fabricated rape allegations to cover up their embarrassment at being dismissed by Hoggard.

The jury told the court on Thursday that they could not reach unanimous agreement on “certain” counts, but the judge asked them to continue their deliberations. The jurors then asked questions and reviewed the testimony of a witness.


source site-53