R. v. Compagna (R.P.), (2008) 441 A.R. 76 (QB)

• Judge: Germain, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 26, 2008
• Citations: (2008), 441 A.R. 76 (QB);2008 ABQB 135

R. v. Compagna (R.P.) (2008), 441 A.R. 76 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] A.R. TBEd. MR.091

Her Majesty the Queen (Crown) v. Roger Paul Compagna (accused)

(041436734Q1; 2008 ABQB 135)

Indexed As: R. v. Compagna (R.P.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Germain, J.

February 26, 2008.

Summary:

Compagna was charged with impaired driving causing death, contrary to s. 255(3) of the Criminal Code. He was the driver in a single vehicle accident that occurred around 3:00 a.m., in which the victim was injured and subsequently died. At 9:05 a.m. and 9:28 a.m., Compagna provided two breath samples to an Intoxilyzer technician. The results were placed before the jury. The opinion of the Crown's expert on Compagna's probable blood-alcohol level at the time of driving, was filed as an exhibit. Both Crown and defense counsel requested a preliminary ruling on threshold admissibility of the expert evidence.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench  held that the expert evidence satisfied the threshold requirements of admissibility as it was probative and relevant. There was no legal, or policy basis, to exclude it. The breath readings could, if interpreted, provide some circumstantial evidence of Compagna's state of sobriety at 3:00 a.m. Finally, it was not prejudicial. The issue was one of weight, and the court could charge the jury on frailties in this type of evidence.

Editor's Note: For a related case, see R. v. Compagna (R.P.), 2008 ABQB 79.

Criminal Law - Topic 1376

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Proof of blood-alcohol content - [See second Evidence - Topic 7075 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4365

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding expert evidence - [See second Evidence - Topic 7075 ].

Evidence - Topic 252

Inferences and weight of evidence - Weight - Expert evidence - [See second Evidence - Topic 7075] .

Evidence - Topic 7002

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - Acceptance, rejection and weight to be given to expert opinion - [See second Evidence - Topic 7075 ].

Evidence - Topic 7012

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - Basis for opinion - [See second Evidence - Topic 7075 ].

Evidence - Topic 7075

Opinion evidence - Reports by experts - Admission of (incl. objection to) - The accused was charged with impaired driving causing death - The opinion of the Crown's expert on the accused's probable blood-alcohol level at the time of driving, was filed as an exhibit - Counsel requested a preliminary ruling on threshold admissibility of the expert evidence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench recognized that it was important to expand on the concepts, so that the parties and the interested public might understand the court's ruling and its significance - The court then gave a brief history of breath testing in Canada, illustrating why most of the law on interpreting blood-alcohol readings at the time of driving related to defence attempts to show that there was evidence to the contrary - Here the Crown could not rely on any presumptions as to what the breath readings were at the time of driving, because they were taken too long after -Thus the Crown needed to use presumed elimination rates to calculate a probable range of blood-alcohol readings at the time of driving - See paragraphs 9 to 13.

Evidence - Topic 7075

Opinion evidence - Reports by experts - Admission of (incl. objection to) - Compagna was charged with impaired driving causing death - He was the driver in a single vehicle accident that occurred around 3:00 a.m. - Dickerson was injured and subsequently died - At 9:05 a.m. and 9:28 a.m., Compagna provided two breath samples to an Intoxilyzer technician - The results were placed before the jury - The opinion of the Crown's expert on Compagna's probable blood-alcohol level at the time of driving (based on presumed elimination rates), was filed as an exhibit - Both Crown and defense counsel requested a preliminary ruling on threshold admissibility of the expert evidence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the expert evidence satisfied the threshold requirements of admissibility as it was probative and relevant - There was no legal, or policy basis, to exclude it, and the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. MacDonald (2006) did not require it to be excluded - The breath readings could, if interpreted, provide some circumstantial evidence of Compagna's state of sobriety at 3:00 a.m. - Finally, it was not prejudicial - The issue was one of weight, and the court could charge the jury on frailties in this type of evidence - See paragraphs 14 to 20.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. MacDonald (M.F.) (2006), 391 A.R. 140; 377 W.A.C. 140; 2006 ABCA 177; leave to appeal granted (2006), 363 N.R. 393, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Chico (E.A.), [2006] A.R. Uned. 698; ABPC 300, refd. to [para. 15].

R. v. St. Pierre (G.R.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 791; 178 N.R. 241; 79 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 18].

Counsel:

John Watson, for the Crown;

David R. Cunningham, for the defence.

This voir dire was heard on February 26, 2008, in Edmonton, Alberta, by Germain, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton. The court gave the following oral reasons for judgment on the same date.