R. v. Pelech (T.G.), 2012 ABCA 134

• Judge: Ritter, Martin and O'Ferrall, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: March 29, 2012
• Citations: 2012 ABCA 134;(2012), 522 A.R. 235

R. v. Pelech (T.G.) (2012), 522 A.R. 235; 544 W.A.C. 235 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. MY.011

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Travis Gregory Pelech (respondent)

(1103-0103-A; 2012 ABCA 134)

Indexed As: R. v. Pelech (T.G.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Ritter, Martin and O'Ferrall, JJ.A.

May 4, 2012.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of impaired driving. The accused appealed, arguing that the judge failed to apply the rule in Hodge's case.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 507 A.R. 389, allowed the appeal. The Crown applied for leave to appeal.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Berger, J.A., in a decision reported 510 A.R. 323; 527 W.A.C. 323, granted leave to appeal on the Hodge's case issue. The appeal proceeded.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the conviction.

Criminal Law - Topic 4358

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding circumstantial evidence - [See Evidence - Topic 306 ].

Evidence - Topic 306

Circumstantial evidence - Rule in Hodge's Case - Whether evidence consistent with other rational conclusions - The accused was convicted of impaired driving - He appealed, arguing that the judge failed to apply the rule in Hodge's case - The summary conviction appeal court (SCAC) allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge failed to consider the rule in Hodge's case thereby committing the error of failing to consider whether the inference of impairment by alcohol was the only rational inference that could be drawn from the evidence - The Crown appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - In reaching a verdict, the trial judge was not required either to refer to, or have in mind the rule in Hodge's case, and the SCAC erred in so finding - Here, the trial judge's reasons clearly explained what evidence he took into account and how the cumulative effect of that evidence satisfied him that the charge had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt - No more was required.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Griffin (J.) et al. (2009), 388 N.R. 334; 2009 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Power (K.M.) (2002), 311 A.R. 27; 2002 ABQB 153, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 2002 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 19].

Counsel:

J.R. Russell, for the appellant;

L.L. Garcia, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 29, 2012, in Edmonton, Alberta, before Ritter, Martin and O'Ferrall, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following memorandum of judgment was filed by the court on May 4, 2012.