R. v. Poirier (J.C.), (1997) 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 195 (PEICA)

• Judge: Carruthers, C.J.P.E.I., Mitchell and McQuaid, JJ.A.
• Case Date: December 20, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Prince Edward Island
• Citations: (1997), 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 195 (PEICA)

R. v. Poirier (J.C.) (1997), 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 195 (PEICA);

    459 A.P.R. 195

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Joseph Clifford Poirier (respondent)

(AD-0678)

Indexed As: R. v. Poirier (J.C.)

Prince Edward Island Supreme Court

Appeal Division

Carruthers, C.J.P.E.I., Mitchell and McQuaid, JJ.A.

February 10, 1997.

Summary:

A judge sitting without a jury acquitted the accused on charges of aggravated assault and committing an offence while masked. The Crown appealed, arguing that the trial judge improperly excluded statements the accused made to police (Charter, s. 24) and erred in failing to find that the Crown had not met the onus of proof necessary to convict.

The Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal, McQuaid, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 3160

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to remain silent - The police arrested the accused for his suspected involvement in an assault - The accused was told of his Charter rights and said he intended to call counsel at the police sta­tion - During the hour and 20 minute drive to the sta­tion, the officer obtained inculpatory state­ments from the accused - The accused was charged with aggravated assault and being masked while commit­ting a crime - The trial judge excluded the statements under s. 24(2) of the Charter and acquitted the accused - The Crown appealed - The Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed that the accused's right to counsel and his privilege against self-incrimination were violated and that the state­ments were properly excluded - See para­graphs 5, 6.

Civil Rights - Topic 4302

Protection against self-incrimination - Right to remain silent - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3160 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4602

Right to counsel - Denial of - Evidence taken inadmissible - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3160 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - Denial of, or interfer­ence with - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3160 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4609.1

Right to counsel - Duty of police investi­gators - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3160 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4859

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Question of fact - [See Crim­inal Law - Topic 4975 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4865

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Verdict unreasonable or un­supported by evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4975 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4865

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Verdict unreasonable or un­supported by evidence - A judge sitting without a jury acquitted the accused on charges of aggravated assault and commit­ting an offence while masked - The Crown appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in law by acquitting the accused on the basis of conjecture - The Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal rejected the Crown's argument - The court noted that there was evidence to support the judge's decision - The accused testified that he did not commit the crime and the judge believed him - As a result there could be no conviction because the Crown had not proven its case beyond a reason­able doubt - See paragraphs 10 to 12.

Criminal Law - Topic 4866

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Misapprehension of evidence - A judge sitting without a jury acquitted the accused on charges of aggravated assault and committing an offence while masked - The Crown appealed, arguing that the trial judge's verdict of acquittal resulted from his failure to appreciate the evidence and a misapprehension of the principle of reasonable doubt - The Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal rejected this ground of appeal - The court stated that even if the judge failed to appreciate the evidence, it would still not, in itself, con­stitute an appealable ground - Further, there was no misdirection respecting rea­sonable doubt - See paragraphs 13, 14.

Criminal Law - Topic 4975

Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of Court of Appeal - Appeal from acquittal - A judge sitting without a jury acquitted the accused on charges of aggravated assault and committing an offence while masked - The Crown appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in failing to find that the Crown had not met the onus of proof necessary to convict - The Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal held that the Crown's argument amounted to a claim that the trial judge's verdict was unreason­able and not supported by the evidence, which was not an appealable issue - The Crown's right of appeal from an acquittal is restricted to grounds that involve ques­tions of law alone - If a trial judge erred in finding that the onus of proving guilt was not satisfied, then that was an error of fact, not law - See paragraphs 7 to 15.

Criminal Law - Topic 5214.7

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Circumstantial evidence - A judge sitting without a jury acquitted the accused on charges of aggravated assault and committing an offence while masked - The Crown appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in failing to apply the rule in Hodge's Case respecting circumstantial evidence - The Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal rejected the Crown's argument - See paragraph 15.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 16 C.R.(4th) 273, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Brydges, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 190; 103 N.R. 282; 104 A.R. 124; 74 C.R.(3d) 129; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 330; [1990] 2 W.W.R. 220; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236; 172 N.R. 161; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 380 A.P.R. 321; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122, refd to. [para. 6].

Lampard v. R., [1969] 3 C.C.C. 249 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 8, 31].

Sunbeam Corp. (Can.) v. R., [1969] 2 C.C.C. 189 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 8, 31].

R. v. Wild, [1971] S.C.R. 101; 4 C.C.C.(2d) 40, refd to. [paras. 11, 31].

R. v. Schuldt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 592; 63 N.R. 241; 38 Man.R.(2d) 257; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 225, refd to. [paras. 11, 31].

R. v. Belyea, [1932] S.C.R. 279; 57 C.C.C. 318, refd to. [paras. 11, 41].

R. v. Rousseau, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 38; 60 N.R. 278, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. White (1947), 89 C.C.C. 148 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Morin (K.M.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 286; 142 N.R. 141; 131 A.R. 81; 25 W.A.C. 81; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 16 C.R.(4th) 291, refd to. [paras. 13, 32, 48].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397; 3 C.R.(4th) 302, refd to. [paras. 14, 46].

Hodge's Case (1838), 168 E.R. 1136; 2 Lew. C.C. 227, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Cooper, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 860; 14 N.R. 181; 34 C.C.C.(2d) 18, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Lemire, [1965] S.C.R. 174; 51 D.L.R.(2d) 312; [1965] 4 C.C.C. 11, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Dubois, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 21; 32 N.R. 176; 23 A.R. 116, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Paul, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 181; 4 N.R. 435; 27 C.C.C.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Bagshaw, [1972] S.C.R. 2; 4 C.C.C.(2d) 303, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. White (G.) (1994), 130 N.S.R.(2d) 155; 367 A.P.R. 155 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 66 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Challice (1979), 45 C.C.C.(3d) 546 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 24(2) [para. 2].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 676(1)(a) [paras. 7, 31].

Counsel:

Valerie A. Moore, for the appellant;

R. Scott Peacock, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, on December 20, 1996, before Carruthers, C.J.P.E.I., Mitchell and McQuaid, JJ.A., of the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal. The following deci­sion was delivered on February 10, 1997, including the following opinions:

Mitchell, J.A., (Carruthers, C.J.P.E.I., concurring) - See paragraphs 1 to 15;

McQuaid, J.A., dissenting - See para­graphs 16 to 54.