R. v. Kotowich (R.), 1999 ABQB 798

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 26, 1999
• Citations: 1999 ABQB 798;(1999), 253 A.R. 174 (QB)

R. v. Kotowich (R.) (1999), 253 A.R. 174 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] A.R. TBEd. NO.102

Her Majesty The Queen v. Robert Kotowich

(Action No. 9903-0280-C0; 1999 ABQB 798)

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

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

October 26, 1999.

Summary:

An accused was charged with sexual assault and obtaining sexual services, for consideration, from a person under the age of 18. The accused applied to edit his state­ment to the police by deleting portions of the statement.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application.

Criminal Law - Topic 5209

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Prejudicial evidence - The accused was charged with sexual offences -He applied to edit his video­taped statement to the police - In particu­lar the accused sought to delete lengthy comments by the police officer taking the statement in which the officer gave his opinion that the ac­cused assaulted the victim and introduced the concept of proportionality of the ac­cused's conduct and the conduct of Paul Bernardo - He also sought to delete portions of the state­ment related to a re­straining order obtained against the accused by his wife and his criminal record - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench deleted the impugned por­tions - The impugned portions were irrel­evant and prejudicial and their deletion would not distort the tenor or flow of the accused's statement.

Criminal Law - Topic 5351

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Confessions excluded due to prejudicial effect - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5209 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5357

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Exclusion of irrel­evant portions - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5209 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5437

Evidence and witnesses - Cross-examin­ation of accused - Prior convictions - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "The Supreme Court of Canada decision in [R. v. Underwood (G.R.)] does not require that a Corbett application [to determine whether an accused who chose to testify could be cross-examined on his prior criminal record] be made only after the Crown has closed its case ... The Corbett application need only be delayed until the court gets a realistic flavour of the way in which the defence is challenging the pros­ecution witnesses..." - See paragraph 21.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Cho (M.W.H.), [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. (S.C.), refd to. [paras. 5, 15].

R. v. Creek (P.W.), [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. J07 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Aubin, [1997] A.Q. No. 2441 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 5, 15].

R. v. Deol, Gill and Randev (1981), 27 A.R. 510; 58 C.C.C.(2d) 524 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 5, 15].

R. v. Underwood (G.R.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 77; 221 N.R. 161; 209 A.R. 276; 160 W.A.C. 276, refd to. [paras. 5, 21].

R. v. Ross, [1998] A.Q. No. 3525, refd to. [para. 5].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Kaufman, Fred, Admissibility of Confes­sions (3rd Supp. to 3rd Ed.), p. 137 [paras. 5, 15].

McWilliams, Peter K., Canadian Criminal Evidence (3rd Ed.), generally [paras. 4, 12].

Counsel:

Dave Hill, for the Crown;

Shawn Beaver and Marshall Hopkins, for the accused.

This application was heard and decided on October 26, 1999, at Edmonton, Alberta, by Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who released the following written reasons on October 27, 1999.