R. v. Carr (J.), (1997) 28 O.T.C. 282 (GD)

• Judge: Chapnik, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: March 04, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1997), 28 O.T.C. 282 (GD)

R. v. Carr (J.) (1997), 28 O.T.C. 282 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite. [1997] O.T.C. TBEd. AP.090

Her Majesty the Queen v. Jack Carr

(Court File No. 0823/96 J)

Indexed As: R. v. Carr (J.)

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Chapnik, J.

March 24, 1997.

Summary:

Allegations against the accused involved a police chase, first by car and then on foot. The accused was sprayed with pepper spray and was eventually placed in a stretcher in the back of an ambulance. A police officer was seated in the front passenger seat. The accused made certain utterances to the ambulance attendants in response to their questions. The officer overheard the conversation and recorded the questions and answers in his notebook. The Crown sought to introduce the accused's statements to the ambulance attendants into evidence. The issue arose whether a voir dire had to be held to determine the voluntariness of the utterances. The Crown contended that a voir dire need not be held since the statements were made to the ambulance attendants who were not persons in authority.

The Ontario Court (General Division) held that a voir dire had to be held to determine whether the accused had the capacity to make the statement he did in that it was the product of the accused's open state of mind. The Crown had to establish that the statement procured from the accused while in the back of the ambulance was freely and voluntarily given.

Criminal Law - Topic 5332

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Voir dire - Necessity and purpose of - See paragraphs 1 to 13.

Criminal Law - Topic 5353

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Who is a person in authority - See paragraph 12.

Criminal Law - Topic 5353.1

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Statements to persons not in authority - See paragraphs 1 to 13.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Bertrand (1991), 2 O.R.(3d) 659 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Langlais (1980), 62 C.C.C.(2d) 559 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Kematch and Campeau (1979), 3 Sask.R. 295; 9 C.R.(3d) 331 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Wilbrand, [1967] 2 C.C.C. 6 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Roadhouse (1933), 61 C.C.C. 191 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Luckhurst (1853), 169 E.R. 713, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. De Mesquito (1915), 24 C.C.C. 407 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Bahrey, [1934] 1 W.W.R. 376 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Cleary (1963), 48 Cr. App. Rep. 116, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. A.B. (1986), 13 O.A.C. 68; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 17 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Demenoff, [1964] 1 C.C.C. 118 (B.C.C.A.), affd. [1964] 2 C.C.C. 305 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Matchette (1946), 87 C.C.C. 46 (N.B.C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Rocha (1982), W.C.B. 63 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

Counsel:

L. Henderson, for the Crown/applicant;

R. Baron for the accused/respondent.

This matter was heard on March 4, 1997, before Chapnik, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who delivered the following judgment which was released on March 24, 1997.