Photo: The Canadian Press
Jurors in the sexual assault case against Canadian musician Jacob Hogard sought more help from the court on Friday, as the debate continued for the fourth day.
The jury, weighing the fate of the Hedley frontman, asked on Thursday night how she could use the evidence in a telephone conversation between Hoghard and the second applicant, recorded without her knowledge days after the alleged incident.
Ontario Supreme Court Judge Gillian Roberts said at the time that the call could be used to assess the applicant’s behavior and state of mind.
On Friday, jurors asked for clarification on the legal definition of “state of mind” and how to apply it in the evaluation of the call.
Roberts told them that the state of mind is defined as “faith, perceptions, emotions, or intentions.”
The jurors may, but are not required to, conclude from the conversation that the second applicant is upset, the judge told them. If they do, then they need to ask themselves what she is upset about, she said.
The Crown alleges that the applicant was upset because she was sexually assaulted, while the Defense alleges that she was humiliated, Roberts said.
“If you conclude that she is upset because she was sexually assaulted, then you can view her upset condition as circumstantial evidence that tends to support her credibility that she was sexually abused,” the judge said. Indirect evidence makes sense only in light of the body of evidence, she added.
Hoghard, 37, pleaded not guilty to two counts of sexual assault and one of sexual intercourse, sexual assault.
The Crown claims that Hogard forcibly and repeatedly raped a teenage fan and a young woman from Ottawa in separate incidents in the fall of 2016. He also allegedly groped the teenager after a Hadley show in April 2016, when she was she was 15 years old.
The defense claims that the palpation did not take place and that both sexual encounters were by mutual consent. Defense attorneys allege that the applicants made allegations of rape in order to cover up their embarrassment by being rejected by Hogard.
On Thursday, the jury told the court it could not reach a unanimous agreement on “some” points, but was instructed to continue discussions. The jurors then continued to ask questions and review the testimony of one witness.
Add Comment