R. v. Groat (R.), (2006) 221 B.C.A.C. 240 (CA)

• Judge: Rowles, Newbury and Levine, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: September 29, 2005
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2006), 221 B.C.A.C. 240 (CA);2006 BCCA 27

R. v. Groat (R.) (2006), 221 B.C.A.C. 240 (CA);

    364 W.A.C. 240

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JA.068

Regina (respondent) v. Robert Groat (appellant)

(CA032849; 2006 BCCA 27)

Indexed As: R. v. Groat (R.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Rowles, Newbury and Levine, JJ.A.

January 24, 2006.

Summary:

The accused was charged with production of marihuana and possession of the marihuana for the purpose of trafficking. A voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of statements made to the police by the accused and real evidence found by the police as a result of a warrantless search of the accused's house. The trial judge admitted the evidence and convicted the accused. The accused appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 3604

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes detention - The two police officers responded to a 911 call at the accused's residence - When the accused answered his door, the police thought they smelled fresh growing marihuana inside in the basement - The police asked the accused a few questions - The conversation took several minutes - There was no indication the police were going to leave - At first, the accused denied any knowledge about what was in the basement but then admitted that he did know what was in the basement and that it was all his and his responsibility - A third officer arrived - The accused later signed a written consent to enter the residence - He had been told that he would be charged if a grow operation was found - The police found a grow operation in the basement and arrested him and gave him his rights - The accused argued that he should have been given his right to counsel before he made the admission respecting the basement - The trial judge held that the accused was not detained as he was not satisfied that the accused reasonably believed that he was compelled to answer the police's questions - The British Columbia Court of Appeal opined that it likely would not have reached the same conclusion as the trial judge did respecting whether the accused was detained prior to his arrest - See paragraphs 11 to 15.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - The police responded to a 911 call at the accused's residence - When the accused answered his door, the police thought they smelled fresh growing marihuana inside in the basement - The police asked the accused a few questions - At first, he denied any knowledge about what was in the basement but then admitted that he did know what was in the basement and that it was all his and his responsibility - The accused later signed a written consent to enter the residence - The police found a grow operation in the basement and arrested him and gave him his rights - He later gave a videotaped statement at the police statement in which he took responsibility for the grow operation - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that, assuming the accused's Charter rights under ss. 8 and 10(b) of the Charter were violated by the police, the trial judge did not err in admitting the accused's statements made prior to arrest and the results of the search - The officers acted in good faith - The evidence was essential to the Crown's case - The police could likely have obtained a search warrant and found the evidence - Exclusion of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute - See paragraphs 17 to 20.

Criminal Law - Topic 5355

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Whether statement was made freely and voluntarily - The police responded to a 911 call at the accused's residence - When the accused answered his door, the police thought they smelled fresh growing marihuana inside in the basement - The police asked the accused a few questions - At first, he denied any knowledge about what was in the basement but then admitted that he did know what was in the basement and that it was all his and his responsibility - He later signed a written consent to enter the residence - The police found a grow operation in the basement and arrested him and gave him his rights - He later gave a videotaped statement at the police station in which he took responsibility for the grow operation - The trial judge held that the accused's statements to the police were voluntary - The accused appealed, challenging the finding of voluntariness on the basis that the officers had failed to keep a complete record of all their questions and the accused's answers and they could not remember in detail what exactly had been said prior to the accused making his incriminating statement - Only one of three officers took notes - The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - See paragraphs 5 to 10.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Belanger (1978), 40 C.C.C.(2d) 335 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Ahmed (A.) (2002), 166 O.A.C. 254; 7 C.R.(6th) 308 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Moore-McFarlane (G.C.) et al. (2001), 152 O.A.C. 120; 47 C.R.(5th) 203 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

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, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Kay (1990), 53 C.C.C.(3d) 500 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Stanford (M.B.) (1994), 51 B.C.A.C. 58; 84 W.A.C. 58 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Ingenhaag v. Burdock (1991), 4 B.C.A.C. 186; 9 W.A.C. 186 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Van Wyk (H.W.) (1999), 104 O.T.C. 161 (Sup. Ct.), affd. [2002] O.A.C. Uned. 276 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Dolynchuk (E.N.) (2004), 184 Man.R.(2d) 71; 318 W.A.C. 71; 184 C.C.C.(3d) 214 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Tang (S.K.) (2001), 153 B.C.A.C. 6; 251 W.A.C. 6; 2001 BCCA 165, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Bohn (J.A.) (2000), 136 B.C.A.C. 263; 222 W.A.C. 263; 145 C.C.C.(3d) 320; 2000 BCCA 239, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Mann (P.H.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59; 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 19].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Kaufman, Fred, The Admissibility of Confessions (3rd Ed. 1979), p. 139 [para. 6].

Watt, David J., Manual of Criminal Evidence (2005), § 41.07 [para. 20].

Counsel:

R. Neary, for the appellant;

P.A. Eccles, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on September 29, 2005, at Victoria, British Columbia, by Rowles, Newbury and Levine, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Newbury, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 24, 2006.