R. v. Duhamel and Dorset, (1979) 24 A.R. 493 (QB)

• Judge: Waite, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 31, 1979
• Citations: (1979), 24 A.R. 493 (QB)

R. v. Duhamel (1979), 24 A.R. 493 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Duhamel and Dorset

(CR12605)

Indexed As: R. v. Duhamel and Dorset

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Waite, J.

October 31, 1979.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Criminal Law - Topic 5355

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Whether statement was made freely and voluntarily - The Crown sought to introduce a written statement of a third party into evidence, for the incriminating matter that it contained, because the accused orally adopted it - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the statements, whether judged as one or two, were inadmissible - The court stated that the cumulative effect of several matters, each of which in itself might have been minor and without any significance or influential effect, was to leave the court with a reasonable doubt on the question of voluntariness - See paragraph 5.

Criminal Law - Topic 5337

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Admissibility - The Crown sought to introduce a written statement of a third party into evidence, for the incriminating matter that it contained, because the accused orally adopted it - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that, even if the statement was otherwise admissible, it was inadmissible because it was irrelevant - The court stated that the written statement contained references to criminal activities that were not related to the matters contained in the indictment and would be highly prejudicial to the accused - See paragraphs 38 and 39.

Criminal Law - Topic 5262

Evidence and witnesses - Admissions - Adoption of statement of third party - The Crown sought to introduce a written statement of a third party into evidence, for the incriminating matter that it contained, because the accused orally adopted it - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the written statement of the third party was inadmissible - The court stated that without a clear and unequivocal acknowledgment of adoption of the statement of the third party the written statement of the third party was hearsay - See paragraphs 28 to 37.

Counsel:

[None disclosed.]

This matter was heard before WAITE, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary.

The decision of WAITE, J., was delivered on October 31, 1979.