Supreme Court cites hearsay evidence in upholding order of new trial in beating death

The timing of the group’s departure was key to establishing how long the men were the only ones at the trailer.

At trial, Saddleback raised the possibility that sometime after the group left for the party, someone else turned up and killed Dennehy.

Members of the group gave inconsistent evidence about the timing, but said Dennehy was on the phone and Saddleback was in the trailer when they were leaving.

It is clear that between 10 and 10:30 p.m., Dennehy was on the phone with his girlfriend, Delayna Bull, for 10 to 20 minutes.

Bull testified that toward the end of the call, the sound became distorted as if Dennehy had dropped his phone. She later heard shuffling, tussling and repeated thudding.

Saddleback’s counsel asked Bull, on cross-examination, whether Dennehy had told her during the call that “he was being ditched by those guys.” She eventually agreed that Dennehy had used the word “ditched.”

The trial judge convicted Saddleback of second-degree murder, providing brief oral reasons that mentioned Dennehy’s statement about being “ditched.”

A majority of the Court of Appeal allowed Saddleback’s appeal and ordered a new trial on the basis the judge erred in relying on Dennehy’s out-of-court statement.

The Crown then took its case to the Supreme Court.

In its ruling Friday, a majority of the top court said the trial judge used the victim’s statement as hearsay — that is, for proof of the truth of its contents.

Hearsay is generally inadmissible in court, mainly because it is often difficult to assess the truthfulness of the statement in question.

The court agreed that a new trial is needed.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 22, 2026.

Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press

by The Canadian Press

Supreme Court cites hearsay evidence in upholding order of new trial in beating death

What's Trending