R. v. Lepowick (D.), (2007) 303 Sask.R. 225 (PC)

• Judge: Green, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: October 09, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2007), 303 Sask.R. 225 (PC);2007 SKPC 115

R. v. Lepowick (D.) (2007), 303 Sask.R. 225 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] Sask.R. TBEd. OC.043

The Queen v. Darcy Lepowick also known as Darcy Lypowich

(Information No. 35959659; 2007 SKPC 115)

Indexed As: R. v. Lepowick (D.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Green, P.C.J.

October 9, 2007.

Summary:

Lepowick was charged with illegal wildlife trafficking. After the trial, the Crown applied to re-open its case to call a rebuttal witness.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court dismissed the application.

Criminal Law - Topic 4570

Procedure - Conduct of trial - Re-opening of trial to hear additional evidence - An investigator believed that Jeff Robson had provided the accused, Lepowick, with a deer fawn - In 2003, the investigator obtained a tape-recorded statement from Kim Robson, Jeff Robson's ex-spouse, as a confidential informant - Lepowick was charged with illegal wildlife trafficking - At trial, he acknowledged that he knew Jeff Robson, but denied ever buying any animals from him - Before judgment was rendered, Kim Robson provided the Crown with a statement in which she recalled Jeff Robson selling deer fawns to Lepowick - The Crown applied to reopen its case to call Kim Robson as a rebuttal witness - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court dismissed the application - While Kim Robson might no longer be viewed as a confidential informant, her statement provided no new information - Something more than a suggested change in Robson's status without any suggestion of a previous inconsistent statement by Lepowick was required to allow receipt of the rebuttal evidence - The potential effect of the evidence was to allow the Crown to challenge Lepowick's credibility and to bolster its case - This was unfair to Lepowick as he had already closed his defence - Any doubt as to the effect of allowing the rebuttal evidence had to be resolved in favour of the accused.

Criminal Law - Topic 5235

Evidence and witnesses - Rebuttal evidence - By Crown - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4570 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Melnichuk (L.) (1996), 87 O.A.C. 336; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 160 (C.A.), revd. [1997] 1 S.C.R. 602; 209 N.R. 321; 99 O.A.C. 218; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 503, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Drake (1970), 1 C.C.C.(2d) 396 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903; 90 N.R. 173, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Bruno (1975), 27 C.C.C.(2d) 318 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. King (A.) (1998), 57 O.T.C. 70 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Brooks (1986), 28 C.C.C.(3d) 441 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Counsel:

Todd Wellsch, for the Crown;

David Rusnak, for the defence.

This application was heard by Green, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following interim decision on October 9, 2007.