A prosecutor may invite a jury to prefer the evidence of one prosecution witness over another without first confronting the latter witness with the former's evidence, provided the prosecutor does not seek to impugn the witness's credibility or advance a proposition not put to the witness. The Saddik/Ritchie/Murillo/Astbury line of authority requiring a witness be given the opportunity to respond applies only where the prosecutor seeks to impugn or traverse the witness's evidence, not where the prosecutor simply submits one account is more reliable than another. A four-week interval between a traumatic incident and a photo board identification is sufficient for the witness's memory to remain 'fresh' for the purposes of s 66(2) of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic).
The full text is available to signed-in members.