R. v. King, (1972) 3 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 315 (NFSC)

• Judge: Puddester, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
• Case Date: August 14, 1972
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (1972), 3 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 315 (NFSC)

R. v. King (1972), 3 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 315 (NFSC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. King

Indexed As: R. v. King

Newfoundland Supreme Court

Puddester, J.

August 14, 1972.

Summary:

The Supreme Court on appeal by way of trial de novo affirmed the conviction of the accused on a charge of driving with a blood-alcohol content in excess of 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, contrary to Section 236 of the Criminal Code.

The accused submitted to a breathalyzer test and certificate evidence of a qualified technician was introduced at his trial. The defendant objected to the admission of the certificate on the grounds that the demand to take the breathalyzer test was improper, since there were no reasonable and probable grounds for the belief that the accused was driving while impaired contrary to Section 234 of the Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court held that the certificate may be admitted into evidence under Section 237(1)(f) without proof that the officer who made the demand to the accused to take the breath test had reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the accused was impaired.

The Supreme Court stated that reasonable and probable grounds for the officer's belief of the accused's impairment need only be proved where the accused is charged with failing to comply with a demand to supply a breath sample.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer, evidence and certificate evidence (incl. evidence to the contrary) - Charge of driving with blood alcohol reading of over .08 - Evidence - Admissibility of certificate evidence of a technician - The Newfoundland Supreme Court held on a trial de novo that the technician's certificate was admissible without proof that the officer who demanded the test had reasonable grounds to believe the accused was impaired.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. McKenzie (1955), 111 C.C.C. 317, refd to.

R. v. Hudson (1955), 113 C.C.C. 390, refd to.

R. v. Livingstone, [1971] 4 W.W.R. 230, not folld

R. v. Nelson, [1972] 1 W.W.R. 392, not folld.

R. v. Strain (1971), 2 C.C.C.(2d) 412, folld.

R. v. Showell (1971), 4 C.C.C.(2d) 252, folld.

Hurley v. Taylor (1953), 31 M.P.R. 319, refd to.

R. v. Verischagin, 6 C.C.C.(2d) 473, folld.

R. v. Wirsta (1970), 1 C.C.C.(2d) 538, not folld.

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 234, sect. 235, sect. 237(1)(f).

Counsel:

Alan W. Carter, for the appellant;

Bruce Winsor, for the Crown.