R. v. Bouchard, (1981) 11 Man.R.(2d) 339 (CoCt)

• Court: Provincial Court of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: June 30, 1981
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1981), 11 Man.R.(2d) 339 (CoCt)

R. v. Bouchard (1981), 11 Man.R.(2d) 339 (CoCt)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Bouchard

Indexed As: R. v. Bouchard

Manitoba County Court

Coleman, C.C.J.

June 30, 1981.

Summary:

The accused was charged with perjury contrary to s. 120 of the Criminal Code.

The Manitoba County Court convicted the accused.

Criminal Law - Topic 511

Perjury - Corroboration - The accused, as a witness in a trial against another, testified that he bought marijuana from the other - Subsequently, the accused told a police officer that he did not own the marijuana and that he lied at the trial - The accused was charged with perjury - The Crown, through the officer, introduced what the accused said - The Manitoba County Court held that s. 123 of the Criminal Code, which required corroboration of the evidence of a witness in a perjury trial, did not apply in the situation and further stated when corroboration was necessary - See paragraphs 17 to 30.

Criminal Law - Topic 512

Perjury - Evidence and proof - The Manitoba County Court stated the elements necessary to constitute the offence of perjury - See paragraph 16.

Criminal Law - Topic 512

Perjury - Evidence and proof - The accused, as a witness in a trial against another, testified that he bought marijuana from the other - Subsequently, the accused told a police officer that he did not own the marijuana and that he lied at the trial - The accused was charged with perjury - The Crown, through the officer, introduced what the accused said - The Manitoba County Court held that the Crown proved the offence of perjury.

Criminal Law - Topic 5333

Evidence - Confessions and voluntary statements - Voir dire - Use of evidence taken during - The Manitoba County Court stated that evidence given on a voir dire did not form part of the evidence at trial unless both counsel consented - See paragraph 6.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Gauthier (1976), 10 N.R. 373; 33 C.R.N.S. 46, folld. [para. 6].

R. v. Calder, 129 C.C.C. 202 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 13, 33].

R. v. Elliot (1972), 9 C.C.C.(2d) 207 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 18, 33].

R. v. Kyling, 15 D.L.R.(3d) 351 (S.C.C.), reversing (1969), 7 C.R.N.S. 161 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 23, 33].

R. v. Baldry (1852), 1 Den. 430, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Nash (1914), 23 C.C.C. 38; 6 W.W.R. 1390 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Brewer (1921), 34 C.C.C. 341 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Pearson (1948), 7 C.R. 15 (Que. C.A.) [para. 33].

R. v. Peterson (1916), 27 C.C.C. 3 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Daun (1906), 11 C.C.C. 244 (Ont. C.A.), affirmed 28 C.C.C. 322 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Mayhew (1834), 172 E.R. 1256, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Falkenberg, 13 C.C.C.(2d) 562 (Ont. C.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Farris, [1956] 3 C.C.C. 246 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Courval v. R., 25 C.R. 239 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Wolf (1947), 17 C.C.C.(2d) 425 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Regnier, 21 C.R. 374 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Gushere, 50 C.C.C.(2d) 417 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Muscot, 10 Mod. 192; 88 E.R. 689, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Harris, 5 B. & Ald. 925; 106 E.R. 1430, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Thorogood, 8 Mod. 179; 88 E.R. 131, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Knitt, 5 B. & Ald. 929; 106 E.R. 1431, refd to. [para. 33].

State v. Story (1921), 182 N.W. 613, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Zappia & Luppino, 27 C.C.C.(2d) 448 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Blackburn, [1980] 4 W.C.B. 303 (B.C.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 120 [para. 10]; sect. 121 [para. 11].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cross on Evidence (3rd Ed.), p. 164 [para. 33].

Delisle, R.J., Witnesses - Now and Later, 34 C.R.N.S. 19 [para. 33].

Counsel:

S. Leinburd, for the Provincial Crown;

R.L. Tapper, for the respondent.

This case was heard by COLEMAN, C.C.J., of the Manitoba County Court of Winnipeg, who on June 30, 1981, delivered the following judgment: