R. v. J.T.J., Jr., (1987) 44 Man.R.(2d) 265 (CA)

• Judge: Hall, O'Sullivan and Huband, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: November 27, 1986
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1987), 44 Man.R.(2d) 265 (CA)

R. v. J.T.J. (1987), 44 Man.R.(2d) 265 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. J.T.J., Jr.

(Suit No. 225/86)

Indexed As: R. v. J.T.J., Jr.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Hall, O'Sullivan and Huband, JJ.A.

January 16, 1987.

Summary:

A young offender was convicted of first degree murder. The young offender appealed his conviction.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. Hall, J.A., dissenting in part, agreed with the reasons of the majority, but disagreed in the result and would have dismissed the appeal.

For cases involving challenges by the young offender to the jurisdiction of the adult court, see 42 Man.R.(2d) 270 and 271.

Criminal Law - Topic 5347

Evidence - Witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Young offenders - Statements of - S. 56(2) of the Young Offenders Act provided that statements given by young persons to those in authority were not admissible unless certain criteria were met - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that s. 56(2) did not distinguish between the statements of a youth who was seen as a witness as opposed to one who was regarded by police as a suspect - Accordingly, police may question a young person as a witness without first satisfying the requirements of s. 56(2), but where it appears that the young person was involved in criminal activities and his statements might be used against him, the police must either obtain a waiver of the s. 56 requirements under subs. (4) or obtain further statements after the s. 56(2) criteria are met - See paragraphs 22 to 27.

Criminal Law - Topic 5347

Evidence - Witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Young offenders - Statements of - The day after a murder a youth was brought in for questioning as a possible witness - The youth gave certain exculpatory and inculpatory statements - The statements were not made spontaneously - The police suspected that the youth was the killer and, mindful of his age, contacted his closest adult relative in Winnipeg, with whom he lived and by whom he was employed - In his relative's presence, the youth was arrested and advised of his rights to counsel and to remain silent - The youth refused to waive the requirements in s. 56(2) of the Young Offenders Act respecting the admission of his statements - The Manitoba Court of Appeal therefore held that the statements made by the youth before he was advised of his s. 56 rights were inadmissible - See paragraphs 15 to 28.

Criminal Law - Topic 5347

Evidence - Witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Young offenders - Statements of - A young person was arrested for murder and advised of his right to counsel, which he exercised, and his right to remain silent - After meeting with counsel, the youth refused to give a written statement, but proceeded to answer police questions without his lawyer's presence - The youth was also taken to the scene of the crime, where he voluntarily answered questions, traced his steps and retrieved the murder weapon - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the youth's statements and the physical evidence provided by him were admissible - See paragraphs 29 to 41.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Turvey (1971), 2 N.S.R.(2d) 544; 2 C.C.C.(2d) 401 (S.C.A.D.), consd. [para. 35].

R. v. Settee (1974), 29 C.R.N.S. 104 (Sask. C.A.), consd. [para. 36].

R. v. Stefiuk et al. (1981), 11 Man.R.(2d) 411; 23 C.R.(3d) 389 (Man. C.C.), consd. [para. 37].

R. v. Wray, [1971] S.C.R. 272 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Lessard (1982), 10 C.C.C.(3d) 61 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 613(1)(b) [paras. 46, 49].

Young Offenders Act, S.C. 1980-81-82-83, c. 110, sect. 56 [App.]; sect. 56(1) [para. 39]; sect. 56(2) [paras. 23-24, 29, 34]; sect. 56(4) [paras. 26-27].

Counsel:

B.L. Keyser and D. Baragar, for the appellant;

J.D. Montgomery, Q.C., and L.H. Kee, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Hall, O'Sullivan and Huband, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal on November 27, 1986. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered on January 16, 1987, when the following opinions were filed:

Huband, J.A. (O'Sullivan, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 43;

Hall, J.A., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 44 to 49.