Digest: R v Chung, 2018 SKCA 70

DateAugust 18, 2019

Reported as: 2018 SKCA 70

Docket Number: CACR 2765 , CA18069

Court: Court of Appeal

Date: 2019-08-18

Judges:

  • Ottenbreit
  • Herauf
  • Whitmore

Subjects:

  • Criminal Law � Appeal � Acquittal
  • Criminal Law � Controlled Drugs and Substances Act � Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking
  • Criminal Law � Evidence � Witness � Expert
  • Criminal Law � Judges � Gatekeeper Role

Digest: The respondent was convicted of possession of cocaine rather than possession for the purpose of trafficking. The Crown appealed. The weight of the cocaine was 56.68 grams. The expert concluded that the cocaine was possessed by the respondent for the purpose of trafficking. He testified that the amount of cocaine would last between 16 to 56 days for one user and that it was valued at $3,000. The expert acknowledged that he had heard of people using higher amounts but did not factor them into his calculations because he had been told higher use was an exaggeration. He said that a mere user of cocaine would not have two ounces at any given time but admitted that it was possible for someone to purchase two ounces of cocaine for personal use. There were no other typical signs of trafficking cocaine. The trial judge did not find that the expert�s evidence regarding physiological effects and maximum usage rate met the criteria outlined in Mohan. The expert�s conclusion about the respondent possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking was also excluded. The issue was whether the trial judge erred in exercising her function as gatekeeper of the opinion evidence by excluding the expert�s conclusion as to maximum daily usage of cocaine.
HELD: The appeal was dismissed. The Crown had a stringent standard to meet on the appeal. If the maximum daily usage evidence was not admitted, the average use range would be less reliable and have less weight. The trial judge did not err in rejecting the evidence on physiological effects because the expert lacked medical or other specialized training. The trial judge also rejected maximum usage evidence of the expert, based on the reliability of the expert�s technique in coming to his opinion. The main source of the expert�s opinion was from what cocaine users told him. The trial judge could not determine the accuracy or reliability of the information. The expert also acknowledged that that his information was likely not representative of the broad population of cocaine users. He also admitted to rejecting any of the high
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT