R. v. Roesslein, (1990) 84 Sask.R. 283 (CA)

• Judge: Bayda, C.J.S., Tallis and Sherstobitoff, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: March 05, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1990), 84 Sask.R. 283 (CA)

R. v. Roesslein (1990), 84 Sask.R. 283 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

John Kenneth Roesslein (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(No. 4780)

Indexed As: R. v. Roesslein

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Bayda, C.J.S., Tallis and Sherstobitoff, JJ.A.

March 5, 1990.

Summary:

An accused was charged with impaired driving and a breathalyzer offence under ss. 253(a) and 253(b) of the Criminal Code. The accused claimed that he was never given a proper breathalyzer demand as required by s. 254(3)(a). Therefore, the presumption found in s. 258 regarding the alcohol content of the blood should not be applicable.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court acquitted the accused. The Crown appealed the breathalyzer charge under s. 253(b). The Crown submitted that no formal demand existed and that it was sufficient that the accused understand the nature of the request.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported at 81 Sask.R. 165, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The accused appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 1375

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Demand for breath or blood sample - The accused was charged with a breathalyzer offence - The accused submitted that the Crown could not rely on the presumption of an excessive blood-alcohol content under s. 258 of the Criminal Code because he was never given a proper breathalyzer demand per s. 254(3)(a) - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that no particular words were necessary to make the demand, provided the accused realized the nature and purpose of the request - The accused's appeal was dismissed by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Eden (1972), 84 Sask.R. 281, folld. [para. 2].

R. v. Rilling (1975), 5 N.R. 327; 24 C.C.C.(2d) 81 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 3].

Counsel:

C.A. Snell, for the Crown;

B. Banilevic, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard by Bayda, C.J.S., Tallis and Sherstobitoff, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

The following decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally on March 5, 1990, by Bayda, C.J.S., and filed on March 6, 1990.