R v Aho

R v Aho

Rex v Aho, [1904] 11 BCR 114
Aho was accused of murdering Johnson, and his lawyer motioned for leave to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Aho and Johnson left the group of men they were “drinking and fighting” with in a lodging house, and reappeared shortly thereafter, Johnson after Aho, with a bad head injury that he later succumbed to. During the trial, witnesses for the Crown swore that Johnson indicated that the accused was responsible for his condition before expiring. The trial Judge, Justice Martin, determined this “dying declaration” was not admissible. (115) The defence presented no evidence. The motion for leave to appeal was heard before Chief Justice Hunter and Justices Irving, Martin, and Duff. Chief Justice Hunter decided that “the so-called dying declaration never had any existence,” and refutes Duff’s contention that the jury should have been excluded from the preliminary inquiry as to whether the uncertain dying declaration was admissible. (117) Irving, Martin, and Duff concurred with his judgement



R v Aho


Researcher: Monique F. Ulysses
Researcher: Lauren Chalaturnyk
Metadata author: Connell Parish
Metadata author: Gordon Lyall
Publication Information: See Terms of Use for publication and licensing information.
Source: British Columbia Court of Criminal Appeal. British Columbia Reports. 1904.


Readers of these historical materials will encounter derogatory references to Japanese Canadians and euphemisms used to obscure the intent and impacts of the internment and dispossession. While these are important realities of the history, the Landscapes of Injustice Research Collective urges users to carefully consider their own terminological choices in writing and speaking about this topic today as we confront past injustice. See our statement on terminology, and related sources here.