R. v. Genge, (1982) 37 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 451 (NFPC)

• Judge: Trahey, J.
• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 08, 1982
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (1982), 37 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 451 (NFPC)

R. v. Genge (1982), 37 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 451 (NFPC);

    104 A.P.R. 451

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Genge

(No. 1)

Indexed As: R. v. Genge

Newfoundland Provincial Court

District of St. John's

Trahey, J.

January 8, 1982.

Summary:

The issues in this case involved the admissibility of a statement made by an accused to a person in authority.

The Newfoundland Provincial Court held that the statements made by the accused were voluntary and admissible. See also 37 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 455; 104 A.P.R. 455.

Criminal Law - Topic 5334

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Voir dire - Procedure - The Newfoundland Provincial Court held that the rule that the Crown must call at the voir dire all persons in authority who dealt with the accused in connection with the taking of a statement did not apply where there was an adequate explanation for not doing so - See paragraphs 7 to 8.

Criminal Law - Topic 5337

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Admissibility - General - A statement was given by an accused in the presence of two police officers in response to questions asked by the senior officer - Only the senior officer was called on the voir dire which was held to determine the admissibility of the statement - The Newfoundland Provincial Court held that the statement, being voluntary, was admissible, regardless of the absence of one of the officers, because the absent officer, although she completed the search, arrest and seizure forms, was merely a trainee present as an observer - See paragraphs 3 to 12.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Erven (1978), 6 C.R.(3d) 97; 44 C.C.C.(2d) 76; 92 D.L.R.(3d) 507; 25 N.R. 49; 30 N.S.R.(2d) 89; 49 A.P.R. 89 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 1].

R. v. Botfield (1972), 8 C.C.C.(2d) 281, consd. [para. 3].

R. v. Thiffault (1933), 60 C.C.C. 97, consd. [para. 4].

R. v. Woodward (1975), 23 C.C.C.(2d) 508, consd. [para. 6].

R. v. Kacherowski, 37 C.C.C.(2d) 257, consd. [para. 7].

R. v. Settee, [1974] 3 W.W.R. 177; 22 C.C.C.(2d) 193; 29 C.R.N.S. 104, consd. [para. 8].

Counsel:

David Day, for the Crown;

William English, for the defence.

This case was heard before TRAHEY, J., of the Newfoundland Provincial Court, District of St. John's, whose decision was delivered on January 8, 1982.