R. v. C.R.M., (1998) 165 Sask.R. 95 (QB)

• Judge: Dielschneider, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: April 02, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1998), 165 Sask.R. 95 (QB)

R. v. C.R.M. (1998), 165 Sask.R. 95 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] Sask.R. TBEd. AP.048

Her Majesty The Queen v. C.R.M.

(1997 Q.B.C.A. No. 37)

Indexed As: R. v. C.R.M.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Dielschneider, J.

April 2, 1998.

Summary:

The accused young offender was charged with operating a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol level. The trial judge dismissed the charge. The Crown appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in refusing to admit into evidence an oral statement made by the accused to a police officer at the time that he was detained for investigation.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 5338

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Admissibility - Where accused's rights violated - [See Criminal Law - Topic 8845 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5347

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Young offenders - [See Criminal Law - Topic 8845 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 8714

Young offenders - Right to counsel - [See Criminal Law - Topic 8845 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 8845

Young offenders - Evidence and proof - Admissibility of evidence obtained con­trary to Young Offenders Act - Police approached a vehicle driven by the accused young offender and observed a smell of alcohol and that the accused had bloodshot eyes - The officer asked the accused whether he had consumed alcohol and the accused responded affirmatively - The accused failed a roadside screening test and a breathalyzer demand was made - The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol level - The trial judge ruled that the accused's admission that he had consumed alcohol was elicited in contra­vention of s. 56 of the Young Offenders Act where the accused was not informed of his right to have a parent or counsel present - The trial judge excluded the statement and dismissed the charge where the remaining evidence did not provide reasonable grounds for making a demand for breath samples - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench affirmed the deci­sion.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. P.R.C. (1992), 107 Sask.R. 69 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. B.L.L.; R. v. J.T.F., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 285; 121 N.R. 114; 119 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 330 A.P.R. 181; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 190, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. B.C.W., [1986] 4 W.W.R. 521; 40 Man.R.(2d) 216; 52 C.R.(3d) 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. M.A.M. (1986), 32 C.C.C.(3d) 566 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. P.A.D., [1987] 6 W.W.R. 175; 58 Sask.R. 48 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. P.P. (1987), 12 M.V.R.(2d) 236 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. McNeilly (1988), 10 M.V.R.(2d) 142 (Yukon Terr. S.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Brydges, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 190; 103 N.R. 282; 104 A.R. 124; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 330; 74 C.R.(3d) 129; [1990] 2 W.W.R. 220; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. S.C.D. (1989), 94 A.R. 95 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. R.R.A. (1991), 98 Sask.R. 168 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Elshaw, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 24; 128 N.R. 241; 3 B.C.A.C. 81; 7 W.A.C. 81; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 59 B.C.L.R.(2d) 143, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. J.T.J., Jr., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 755; 112 N.R. 321; 70 Man.R.(2d) 81; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 79 C.R.(3d) 219, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. L.R.I. and E.T., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 504; 159 N.R. 363; 37 B.C.A.C. 48; 60 W.A.C. 48; 26 C.R.(4th) 119; 109 D.L.R.(4th) 140; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 19 C.R.R.(2d) 156, refd to. [para. 17].

Statutes Noticed:

Young Offenders Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Y-1, sect. 56 [para. 13].

Counsel:

Warren Holmes, for the Crown;

Richard W. Danyliuk, for the accused.

This appeal was heard before Diel­schneider, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saska­toon, who delivered the following judgment on April 2, 1998.