R. v. D.J.M., (2003) 343 A.R. 11 (QB)

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 10, 2003
• Citations: (2003), 343 A.R. 11 (QB);2003 ABQB 146

R. v. D.J.M. (2003), 343 A.R. 11 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. MY.171

Her Majesty the Queen v. D.J.M.

(Action No. 017167560 Q1; 2003 ABQB 146)

Indexed As: R. v. D.J.M.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

February 10, 2003.

Summary:

The accused was charged with aggravated assault of an infant child and criminal negligence causing bodily harm to an infant child. A voir dire was conducted with respect to the admissibility of statements made by the accused to police officers during the police investigation.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench excluded a videotaped interview of the accused and the conversation which followed it as involuntary. An unrecorded conversation at the accused's workplace was excluded as being devoid of a proper record and a conversation before the videotaped interview was excluded as affected by the unrecorded record of the conversation at the accused's workplace.

Civil Rights - Topic 4608.1

Right to counsel - Advice of - Understanding of - Police were investigating an assault of an infant child - At the outset of an interview of the accused, police told the accused that his presence was voluntary - He was also advised of his right to counsel - When asked if he wanted to contact a lawyer, the accused responded "Am I under arrest" - When told "no", the accused stated "Then I have no need to" - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found that the accused did not knowingly waive his right to consult counsel and that he did not understand under what circumstances he was entitled to speak to counsel - The police officers also did not correct his misunderstanding of the circumstances which might make doing so advisable - However, the court held that the accused had not established that he was detained - Accordingly, the duties of the police to advise the accused of his predicament and his right to counsel and to furnish him the reasonable opportunity or advisement as to waiver did not arise - See paragraphs 220 to 221.

Civil Rights - Topic 4609.1

Right to counsel - Duty of police investigators - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4608.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4612

Right to counsel - Waiver or abandonment of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4608.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5214.9

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Voir dire - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "The purpose of a voir dire is to make preliminary determinations of admissibility. It should be no surprise, therefore, that evidence that may be in the end found to be inadmissible may be heard within it. Indeed, I am inclined to the view that trial judges should adopt a generally inclusionary policy relative to evidence inside voir dires, subject mainly to the confines of adjudicative fairness and coherence. This flexibility about rules of evidence seems particularly valid when the voir dire is concerned with the admission of defence evidence ... This does not mean that a voir dire needs no rules of evidence either for defence or Crown evidence. Nevertheless, the format of a voir dire and the acceptance of evidence within it need not be completely artificial. It is when evidence is to be offered within a trial that the strictures of the rules of evidence must be enforced more rigorously" - See paragraphs 107 to 108.

Criminal Law - Topic 5335

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - What constitutes a "threat" or "inducement" - The accused was charged with aggravated assault of an infant child and criminal negligence causing bodily harm to the infant child - At issue was the admissibility of statements made by the accused to the police - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found no questionable conduct by the police in their first interview of the accused - The court stated that while a police officer may have planted the seeds of a theory of accidental mishandling by a caring parent in the mind of the accused toward the end of the interview, leaving open the suggestion that the police might listen to such an explanation was not the sort of planting of an idea of a benefit or quid pro quo which itself would constitute an inducement - If such remarks caused the accused to think about his situation, and thereafter to sponsor an exculpatory version along that line, the decision to promote such an explanation would be self-impelled - See paragraphs 128 to 129.

Criminal Law - Topic 5335

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - What constitutes a "threat" or "inducement" - The accused was charged with aggravated assault of an infant child and criminal negligence causing bodily harm to the infant child - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench excluded a videotaped statement which the accused gave to police where a collection of inducements found by the court raised a reasonable doubt as to voluntariness - The court held that the police suggestions to the accused that his wife might be implicated in the offence if he did not implicate himself left it with a reasonable doubt about whether the accused would understand that his admission of guilt was needed to exclude his wife from accusation - That was a form of quid pro quo - Police suggestions to the accused that his silence was causing stress in his family and about the role of Social Services with respect to his children left the court with a reasonable doubt that the accused was encouraged to think that he had to trade admissions for the benefit of his children - That was also a form of quid pro quo - See paragraphs 222 to 237.

Criminal Law - Topic 5336.1

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Recording or videotaping interrogation - The accused was charged with aggravated assault of an infant child and criminal negligence causing bodily harm to the infant child - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench excluded an unrecorded conversation between the police and the accused which occurred at the accused's workplace because of the lack of a proper record - The court also excluded a subsequent conversation between the accused and police where it was affected by the unrecorded record of the conversation at the accused's workplace - See paragraph 241.

Criminal Law - Topic 5339.2

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Admissibility - Effect of prior inadmissible statements - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5336.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5339.2

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Admissibility - Effect of prior inadmissible statements - The accused was charged with aggravated assault of an infant child and criminal negligence causing bodily harm to the infant child - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench excluded a videotaped statement which the accused gave to police where a collection of inducements found by the court raised a reasonable doubt as to voluntariness - The court also excluded a conversation in a police car which followed the videotaped statement - The conversation in the police car could only be understood in light of the videotaped evidence and was part and parcel of the videotaped interview - Influences affecting the videotaped interview were still prevailing when the conversation in the police car occurred - See paragraphs 238 to 239.

Evidence - Topic 7154

Opinion evidence - Prohibited opinions - Re basic or ultimate issue to be decided - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "the 'ultimate issue' objection to opinion evidence has been transformed from a somewhat reflexive basis to object to opinion evidence to an element of a larger principled approach ... The concepts of helpfulness and necessity as they have evolved in relation to opinion evidence include consideration whether or not the trier of fact would really need to have such evidence in order to make a proper decision, and whether or not the adjudicative process would in fact be benefitted (and not distracted or overwhelmed) by having such evidence" - See paragraph 103.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Oickle (R.F.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3; 259 N.R. 227; 187 N.S.R.(2d) 201; 585 A.P.R. 201; 147 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 190 D.L.R.(4th) 257; 36 C.R.(5th) 1, refd to. [para. 9, footnote 2].

R. v. Caouette (M.S.), [2000] N.R. Uned. 147; [2000] 2 S.C.R. 271; 149 C.C.C.(3d) 309; 2000 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 9, footnote 3].

R. v. Tessier (C.S.) (2002), 289 N.R 203; 250 N.B.R.(2d) 203; 650 A.P.R. 203; 162 C.C.C.(3d) 478; 2000 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 9, footnote 4].

R. v. Timm (R.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 666; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 225, affing. [1998] R.J.Q. 3000; 131 C.C.C.(3d) 306 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 5].

R. v. Noël (C.) (2002), 295 N.R. 1; 168 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 218 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 5 C.R.(6th) 1; 2002 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 9, footnote 6].

R. v. Otis (M.) (2000), 37 C.R.(5th) 320; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 416 (Que. C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2001), 274 N.R. 200 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 10, footnote 8].

R. v. Lamirande (S.C.) et al., [2002] 9 W.W.R. 17; 163 Man.R.(2d) 163; 269 W.A.C. 163; 164 C.C.C.(3d) 299; 2002 MBCA 41, affing. (1999), 136 Man.R.(2d) 282 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10, footnote 10].

R. v. Tate (M.J.) (2002), 169 B.C.A.C. 175; 276 W.A.C. 175; 2002 BCCA 189, leave to appeal refused (2003), 308 N.R. 398; 190 B.C.A.C. 160; 311 W.A.C. 160 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 10, footnote 11].

R. v. Liew (K.L.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 227; 244 N.R. 249; 244 A.R. 1; 209 W.A.C. 1; 137 C.C.C.(3d) 353; 27 C.R.(5th) 29; [1999] 9 W.W.R. 538, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 12].

R. v. R.J.S., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 451; 177 N.R. 81; 78 O.A.C. 161; 36 C.R.(4th) 1; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 26 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 121 D.L.R.(4th) 589, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 13].

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 1; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 145; 49 C.R.R. 114; 47 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 14].

R. v. M.B.P., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 555; 165 N.R. 321; 70 O.A.C. 161; 113 D.L.R.(4th) 461; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 29 C.R.(4th) 209; 21 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 15].

R. v. White (J.K.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 417; 240 N.R. 1; 123 B.C.A.C. 161; 201 W.A.C. 161; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 111; 24 C.R.(5th) 201; 42 M.V.R.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 16].

R. v. Fash (D.M.), [2000] 1 W.W.R. 724; 244 A.R. 146; 209 W.A.C. 146; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 144; 199 ABCA 267, leave to appeal refused (2001), 269 N.R. 206; 281 A.R. 272; 248 W.A.C. 272 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 18].

R. v. Hawkins (J.G.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 157; 151 N.R. 176; 107 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 179; 336 A.P.R. 179; 14 C.R.R.(2d) 243; 20 C.R.(4th) 55, refd to. [para. 17, footnote 19].

R. v. Dickens (J.C.), [2001] 6 W.W.R. 721; 277 A.R. 248; 242 W.A.C. 248; 91 Alta. L.R.(3d) 46; 2001 ABCA 51 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 20].

R. v. McKenzie (R.C.) (2001), 293 A.R. 322; 257 W.A.C. 322; 161 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 2001 ABCA 304 (C.A.), affing. [2000] 4 W.W.R. 298; 260 A.R. 171 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 21].

R. v. Paternak (C.D.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 607; 203 N.R. 250; 187 A.R. 395; 127 W.A.C. 395; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 382; 2 C.R.(5th) 119; 44 Alta. L.R.(3d) 201, reving. (1995), 174 A.R. 129; 102 W.A.C. 129; 42 C.R.(4th) 302; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 452; 33 Alta. L.R.(3d) 71 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 22].

R. v. Schmautz, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 398; 106 N.R. 81; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 556; 20 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 75 C.R.(3d) 129; 45 C.R.R. 245; 44 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; [1990] 3 W.W.R. 193, refd to. [para. 17, footnote 23].

R. v. Esposito (1985), 12 O.A.C. 350; 53 O.R.(2d) 356; 20 C.R.R. 102; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 88; 49 C.R.(3d) 193 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1986), 65 N.R. 244; 15 O.A.C. 237; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 88; 50 C.R.(3d) xxv; 53 O.R.(2d) 356; 20 C.R.R. 102 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 24].

R. v. Ancelet (1986), 70 A.R. 263 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1987), 76 N.R. 240; 75 A.R. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 25].

R. v. Bazinet (1986), 14 O.A.C. 15; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 273; 51 C.R.(3d) 139; 54 O.R.(2d) 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 26].

R. v. Grafe (1987), 22 O.A.C. 280; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 267; 60 C.R.(3d) 242 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 27].

R. v. Moran (1987), 21 O.A.C. 257; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 28].

R. v. T.A.V., [2002] 4 W.W.R. 633; 299 A.R. 96; 266 W.A.C. 96; 48 C.R.(5th) 366; 2001 ABCA 316 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 29].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 13 C.R.R. 193, affing. [1983] 4 W.W.R. 385; 23 Sask.R. 81; 5 C.C.C.(3d) 409; 148 D.L.R.(3d) 672; 33 C.R.(3d) 204; 5 C.R.R. 157; 20 M.V.R. 8 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 30].

R. v. Rahn, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 659; 59 N.R. 144; 61 A.R. 56; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 516; 45 C.R.(3d) 134, reving. [1984] 2 W.W.R. 577; 50 A.R. 43; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 152; 7 D.L.R.(4th) 438; 38 C.R.(3d) 1; 29 Alta. L.R.(2d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 31].

R. v. Precourt (1976), 18 O.R.(2d) 714; 36 C.R.N.S. 150; 39 C.C.C.(2d) 311 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1977), 15 N.R. 90; 18 O.R.(2d) 714; 39 C.C.C.(2d) 311 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 32].

Moran (Superintendant of Rhode Island Corrections) v. Burbine (B.) (1986), 475 U.S. 412 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 21, footnote 34].

R. v. Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236; 172 N.R. 161; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 380 A.P.R. 321; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 353; 33 C.R.(4th) 85; 6 M.V.R.(3d) 181; 118 D.L.R.(4th) 154, refd to. [para. 23, footnote 36].

R. v. Luong (G.V.) (2000), 271 A.R. 368; 234 W.A.C. 368; 149 C.C.C.(3d) 571; 6 M.V.R.(4th) 183; 85 Alta. L.R.(3d) 217; 2000 ABCA 301 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 37].

R. v. Ahmed (A.) (2002), 166 O.A.C. 254 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24, footnote 39].

R. v. Moore-McFarlane (G.C.) et al. (2001), 152 O.A.C. 120; 47 C.R.(5th) 203; 160 C.C.C.(3d) 493; 56 O.R.(3d) 737 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24, footnote 40].

R. v. Sabri (E.M.) (2002), 159 O.A.C. 192; 166 C.C.C.(3d) 179 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24, footnote 41].

R. v. Menezes (C.), [2001] O.T.C. 705; 19 M.V.R.(4th) 185 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28, footnote 42].

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 9 C.R.(5th) 1; [1997] 10 W.W.R. 570, refd to. [para. 28, footnote 43].

R. v. Crockett (D.) (2002), 179 B.C.A.C. 269; 295 W.A.C. 269; 2002 BCCA 658 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28, footnote 44].

R. v. Park, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 64; 37 N.R. 501; 21 C.R.(3d) 182 (eng.); 26 C.R.(3d) 164 (fr.); 59 C.C.C.(2d) 385; 122 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 29, footnote 45].

R. v. LaPointe and Sicotte, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1253; 76 N.R. 228; 21 O.A.C. 176; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 287, affing. (1983), 1 O.A.C. 1; 9 C.C.C.(3d) 366 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29, footnote 46].

R. v. Satkunananthan (S.) et al. (2001), 143 O.A.C. 1; 152 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 42 C.R.(5th) 220 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29, footnote 47].

R. v. Ferris (J.M.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 756; 174 N.R. 158; 162 A.R. 108; 83 W.A.C. 108; 34 C.R.(4th) 26, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 48].

R. v. Whittle (D.J.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 914; 170 N.R. 16; 73 O.A.C. 201; 116 D.L.R.(4th) 416; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 11; 32 C.R.(4th) 1; 23 C.R.R.(2d) 6, refd to. [para. 33, footnote 50].

R. v. King (A.), [1999] E.W.J. No. 6913 (C.A. Crim. Div.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 52].

Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1987] 3 F.C. 593; 78 N.R. 180; 37 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 29 C.R.R. 222; 9 C.H.R.R. D/4929 (F.C.A.), affd. [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892; 117 N.R. 191; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 116; 75 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 13 C.H.R.R. D/435, refd to. [para. 35, footnote 53].

R. v. Keegstra (J.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 381; 180 N.R. 120; 169 A.R. 50; 97 W.A.C. 50; 98 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 39 C.R.(4th) 205, refd to. [para. 35, footnote 54].

Public School Boards Association (Alta.) et al. v. Alberta (Attorney General) et al. (2000), 251 N.R. 1; 250 A.R. 314; 213 W.A.C. 314 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 35, footnote 55].

R. v. Marquard (D.), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 81; 66 O.A.C. 161; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 108 D.L.R.(4th) 47; 25 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 35, footnote 56].

R. v. M.J.S. (2000), 263 A.R. 38 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 57].

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161; 147 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 190 D.L.R.(4th) 591; 2000 SCC 40; 36 C.R.(5th) 1; [2000] 11 W.W.R. 1, refd to. [para. 37, footnote 60].

R. v. M.C.H., [1998] 2 S.C.R. 449; 230 N.R. 1; 113 O.A.C. 97; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 18 C.R.(5th) 135; 163 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 37, footnote 61].

R. v. Buric (G.J.) et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 535; 209 N.R. 241; 98 O.A.C. 398; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 95; 32 O.R.(3d) 320; 42 C.R.R.(2d) 187, refd to. [para. 37, footnote 62].

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 402; 114 D.L.R.(4th) 419; 29 C.R.(4th) 243, refd to. [para. 67, footnote 63].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 28 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 64 C.R.(3d) 1; [1988] 4 W.W.R. 481; 34 C.R.R. 54, refd to. [para. 68, footnote 64].

R. v. Graat, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 819; 45 N.R. 451; 2 C.C.C.(3d) 365; 31 C.R.(3d) 289; 144 D.L.R.(3d) 267; 18 M.V.R. 287, refd to. [para. 103, footnote 67].

R. v. Pascoe (D.P.) (1997), 96 O.A.C. 337; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 126; 5 C.R.(5th) 341 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 104, footnote 69].

R. v. J.-L.J., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 600; 261 N.R. 111; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 487; 192 D.L.R.(4th) 416; 2000 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 104, footnote 70].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 7 C.R.(4th) 117; 6 C.R.R.(2d) 35; 83 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 108, footnote 71].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 28 C.R.(5th) 207; [2000] 2 W.W.R. 180; 75 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 108, footnote 72].

R. v. S.L.S. (1999), 228 A.R. 361; 188 W.A.C. 361; 1999 ABCA 41 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 128, footnote 73].

R. v. Rennie (1981), 74 Cr. App. R. 207 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 129, footnote 74].

R. v. Sawchyn, [1981] 5 W.W.R. 207; 30 A.R. 314; 60 C.C.C.(2d) 200; 22 C.R.(3d) 34; 124 D.L.R.(3d) 600 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1981] 2 S.C.R. xi; 39 N.R. 616; 33 A.R. 198, refd to. [para. 129, footnote 75].

R. v. Henri (R.), [2001] A.J. No. 462 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 129, footnote 76].

R. v. Chow, Tai and Limerick (1978), 43 C.C.C.(2d) 215 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 173, footnote 77].

R. v. Stewart (1979), 21 A.R. 300; 54 C.C.C.(2d) 93; 12 Alta. L.R.(2d) 203 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1980), 33 N.R. 450; 23 A.R. 270 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 236, footnote 80].

R. v. Hobbins, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 553; 41 N.R. 433; 27 C.R.(3d) 289; 66 C.C.C.(2d) 289; 135 D.L.R.(3d) 244, refd to. [para. 239, footnote 81].

R. v. B.G., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 475; 240 N.R. 260; 135 C.C.C.(3d) 303; 24 C.R.(5th) 266, affing. (1997), 119 C.C.C.(3d) 276; 10 C.R.(5th) 235 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 239, footnote 82].

R. v. K.S. (2000), 136 O.A.C. 238; 36 C.R.(5th) 198; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 247 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 240, footnote 83].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Gudjonsson, Gisli, Interrogation Tactics and Techniques (August 9, 2002), A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions, c. 1 [para. 34, footnote 51].

Watson, Jack, Talking About the Right to Remain Silent (1991), 34 C.L.Q. 106, generally [para. 11, footnote 13].

Counsel:

Craig Krieger, for the Crown;

A. Brian Beresh (Beresh, Depoe, Cunningham), for the defendant.

This voir dire was heard before Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on February 10, 2003.