MLJ Volume 36-1.pdf - Robson Hall Faculty of Law

256 MANITOBA LAW JOURNAL|VOLUME 36 ISSUE 1
the court allowed the prosecution to admit photographs of the woman
drinking and attending parties to demonstrate that:
the beneficial aspects of probation were not being served because the defendant
was engaging in many of the same activities post-incarceration as she engaged in
before being incarcerated. 155
In another case, a man’s parole was revoked when Facebook pictures
of him drinking and smoking marijuana were used to demonstrate that he
broke the strict terms of his vehicular manslaughter probation. 156 The
court found that while a high evidentiary standard may still be needed to
prove a breach of conditions, once a breach has been proven the state only
needed to show “some indicia of reliability to support its claims.” 157
When composing sentences or no-contact orders, courts should be
mindful of the exact terms of the order. While it is common for a court to
order a person convicted of a crime to avoid contact with the victim, a
court may also need to determine whether it is necessary to broaden the
scope of the order. In People v Wente, 158 a court found that a man
contacting his ex-wife’s friends through Facebook did not breach his “no
contact” order, as the terms were not specific. The court recognized the
need to be very clear when drafting orders in the age of social networks:
“Changes in technology, including the way people communicate, continue
to present unique challenges to the courts.” 159
F. Social Networking and Juries
Ensuring a fair and balanced trial requires the screening of evidence
for possible prejudice before its presentation to the jury. However, it is
equally important that jury members themselves do not use social
networks in a way that creates a perception of unfairness. In Canada, the
courts have found the presence of social networks on their own does not
necessarily infer a jury will be prejudicial. In R v Maguire, 160 Coughlan J
rejected the defence’s request to have a first-degree murder trial conducted
155
State v Altajir, 2 A (3d) 1024at 684 (Conn App 2010); aff’d by 33 A (3d) 193 (Conn
2012) [Altajir].
156
People v Gittens, 2010 WL 3246177 (Cal App 2 Dist) (unpublished).
157
Altajir, supra note 155 at 689.
158
People v Welte, 920 NYS (2d) 627 (NY Just Ct 2011).
159
Ibid at 629.
160
R v Maguire, 2010 NSSC 200, 293 NSR (2d) 33.