R. v. Pearce (M.L.), (2012) 277 Man.R.(2d) 27 (QB)

• Judge: Greenberg, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: January 20, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2012), 277 Man.R.(2d) 27 (QB);2012 MBQB 22

R. v. Pearce (M.L.) (2012), 277 Man.R.(2d) 27 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.014

Her Majesty The Queen v. Michael Lynn Pearce (accused)

(CR 08-01-28498; 2012 MBQB 22)

Indexed As: R. v. Pearce (M.L.)

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Greenberg, J.

January 20, 2012.

Summary:

The accused was facing a manslaughter charge. The only evidence implicating the accused was a statement he made to police. The accused claimed that the confession was not true and sought to call two psychologists at trial to provide opinion evidence regarding false confessions.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench refused to admit the opinion evidence, except for the evidence of one of the experts respecting memories.

Editor's Note: This case was subject to the following restriction on publication: "No information regrading any portion of this voir dire shall be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way before the jury retires to consider its verdict". By email dated May 4, 2012, the court advised that the decision could now be published as a verdict had been handed down in the case.

Evidence - Topic 7062.3

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - Particular matters - False confessions - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench reviewed the law respecting opinion evidence regarding false confessions - See paragraphs 23 to 33.

Evidence - Topic 7062.3

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - Particular matters - False confessions - The accused was facing a manslaughter charge - The only evidence implicating the accused was a statement he made to police - The accused told police that he had hit the victim with a golf club after they had an argument because the victim told him he had AIDS - Subsequently, the accused claimed that the confession was not true and sought to call two psychologists (Peterson and Moore) at trial to provide opinion evidence regarding false confessions - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench disallowed certain of Peterson's testimony on the ground that it failed the criteria of necessity and reliability - However, the court allowed Peterson to give expert evidence on memory theory as that evidence was relevant and necessary in this case - The court disallowed Moore's testimony because it did not meet the criteria of relevance or necessity.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Leslie, 2008 ONCJ 666, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. U. (M.), [2005] O.J. No. 4590, affd. 2007 ONCA 522, refd to. [para. 7, footnote 2].

R. v. S. (S.W.), [2005] O.J. No. 5118 (Sup. Ct. J.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 2].

R. v. C. (T.) (2004), 72 O.R.(3d) 623 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 2].

R. v. M. (P.), [2000] O.J. No. 1622 (Sup. Ct. J.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 2].

R. v. R. (A.), [2003] O.J. No. 1320 (Sup. Ct. J.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 2].

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 23, footnote 3].

R. v. A.K. (1999), 125 O.A.C. 1; 45 O.R.(3d) 641 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Osmar (T.) (2007), 220 O.A.C. 186; 217 C.C.C.(3d) 174; 2007 ONCA 50, leave to appeal refused (2007), 374 N.R. 396; 241 O.A.C. 397 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

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; 2000 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Bonisteel (R.) (2008), 259 B.C.A.C. 114; 436 W.A.C. 114; 2008 BCCA 344, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Phillion (R.J.) (2009), 246 O.A.C. 317; 2009 ONCA 202, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Balbar (R.D.), [2009] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1901; 2009 BCSC 1901, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. J.W.C. (2011), 282 O.A.C. 23; 2011 ONCA 550, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. D.D., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 275; 259 N.R. 156; 136 O.A.C. 201; 2000 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Bell, [1997] N.W.T.R. 45 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Boswell (L.) (2011), 280 O.A.C. 283; 2011 280 ONCA 283, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Marquard (D.), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 81; 66 O.A.C. 161, refd to [para. 60].

R. v. L.K., [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 2562; 86 C.R.(6th) 98; 2011 ONSC 2562, refd to. [para. 64].

Counsel:

K. Dale Harvey and Melinda D. Murray, for the Crown;

Katherine L. Bueti and Michelle S. Bright, for the accused.

This matter was dealt with by Greenberg, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Winnipeg, who delivered the following ruling on January 20, 2012.