R. v. Richard (M.M.), (2016) 329 Man.R.(2d) 36 (QB)

• Judge: Simonsen, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: May 25, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2016), 329 Man.R.(2d) 36 (QB);2016 MBQB 106

R. v. Richard (M.M.) (2016), 329 Man.R.(2d) 36 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JN.027

Her Majesty The Queen v. Max Maurice Richard (accused)

(CR 13-01-33220; 2016 MBQB 106)

Indexed As: R. v. Richard (M.M.)

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Simonsen, J.

May 25, 2016.

Summary:

The accused was charged with second degree murder. He applied under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude from evidence his shoes that were seized by the police, alleging violations of ss. 8, 9 and 10 of the Charter.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that while there were Charter violations, the shoes would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

Civil Rights - Topic 1524

Property - Personal property - Search and seizure by police - Shoes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - The accused, who had some cognitive limitations, voluntarily accompanied the police to the station to be interviewed as a witness respecting a murder - A comment the accused made during the interview led the police to believe that the accused was a suspect - The police arrested him and seized his shoes - The victim's blood was found on the shoes - The accused sought to exclude the shoes from evidence, alleging that he was detained contrary to s. 9 of the Charter (i.e., psychological detention) when he made the comment, which resulted in his arrest and the seizure of the shoes being unlawful - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that at some point during the interview the police questioning changed, creating a detention - Therefore, the accused was detained at the time he made the comment that led to his arrest and there were violations of ss. 8, 9 and 10 of the Charter - The shoes, therefore, were seized incidental to an arrest which was based largely on a comment made in violation of his Charter rights - The court, however, weighing all the applicable factors, refused to exclude the shoes from evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter - See paragraphs 43 to 81.

Counsel:

Mark R. Kantor and Melissa Carlson, for the Crown;

Katherine L. Bueti, for the accused.

This voir dire was held before Simonsen, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who issued the following ruling on May 25, 2016.