翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ R v Marquard ・ R v Marshall ・ R v Marshall; R v Bernard ・ R v Martineau ・ R v Mataung ・ R v Mavros ・ R v McCraw ・ R v McCredie ・ R v McLean & Trinh ・ R v McManus and Harvey ・ R v Mercure ・ R v Miller ・ R v Mills ・ R v Mills (disambiguation) ・ R v Mkize ・ R v Mohan ・ R v Morales ・ R v Morgentaler ・ R v Morgentaler (1993) ・ R v Morris; Anderton v Burnside ・ R v Morrisey ・ R v Motomane ・ R v Mubila ・ R v Nedrick ・ R v Negus ・ R v Neil ・ R v Nette ・ R v Noble ・ R v Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society ・ R v Nur Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク R v Mohan ： ウィキペディア英語版 R v Mohan is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the use of experts in trial testimony. ==Background== Dr. Chikmaglur Mohan was a pediatrician in North Bay, Ontario. He was charged with sexual assault of four teenaged patients. During his trial, the defence tried to put Dr. Hill, a psychiatrist, on the stand as an expert on sexual assault. Hill was intended to testify that the culprit of the offence must have possessed several abnormal characteristics of which Mohan did not have. In a voir dire, Hill testified that the culprit of the first three assaults was likely a pedophile, while the fourth would have been by a sexual psychopath. This evidence was held to be inadmissible by the judge. Mohan was eventually convicted at trial but was overturned on appeal. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Hill's testimony could be admitted as an expert witness, and whether the testimony would violate the rule against character evidence. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R v Mohan」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.