R. v. Sanche (W.), (2003) 347 A.R. 133 (PC)

• Judge: Allen, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 05, 2003
• Citations: (2003), 347 A.R. 133 (PC);2003 ABPC 126

R. v. Sanche (W.) (2003), 347 A.R. 133 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. OC.004

Her Majesty the Queen v. Wayne Julian Sanche

(017081126P101001; 002; 2003 ABPC 126)

Indexed As: R. v. Sanche (W.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Allen, P.C.J.

September 5, 2003.

Summary:

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving while having an excessive blood-alcohol level.

The Alberta Provincial Court found the accused guilty of both charges and entered a conditional stay on the impaired driving charge.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Evidence and certificate evidence (incl. evidence tending to show) - The accused was charged with driving while having an excessive blood-alcohol level - The Crown and the defence accepted the expertise of a forensic alcohol specialist to give opinion evidence - The Crown used specific times of the Intoxilyzer readings as a basis for a hypothetical question put to the expert - The defence argued that the times of the readings were not proven because discrepancies existed between the instrument's internal time clock and the times supplied by the officers - The Alberta Provincial Court rejected the argument - A police officer's watch had been used to record the reading times and the discrepancy between the time on the watch and the time on the approved instrument were explained because the watch was set differently - The evidence did not create a reasonable doubt on the times of the breath samples - See paragraphs 64 to 67.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Evidence and certificate evidence (incl. evidence tending to show) - [See Evidence - Topic 7010 ].

Evidence - Topic 7010

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - Admissibility of information used to support opinion - The accused was charged with driving while having an excessive blood-alcohol level - The Crown and the defence accepted the expertise of a forensic alcohol specialist to give opinion evidence - As a basis for a hypothetical question which he asked the expert, defence counsel relied on an out of court statement made by the accused to a police officer that he had consumed seven to eight beer - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the accused's statement that he had consumed seven to eight beer was inadmissible without a voir dire to determine its voluntariness and that no such request had been made - On that basis the evidence was not admissible for its truth - In addition, the out of court statement was hearsay unless the Crown elected to make it part of its case, which it had not done - Accordingly, there was no foundation for the hypothetical question which defence counsel asked the expert - If the Crown had elected to make the statement part of its case, defence counsel could have used it as a foundation for the hypothetical question - See paragraphs 52 to 61.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. St. Pierre (G.R.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 791; 178 N.R. 241; 79 O.A.C. 321; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Lightfoot, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 566; 36 N.R. 349; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 414, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. St. Pierre (G.R.) (1992), 58 O.A.C. 47; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 249 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Phillips (1988), 27 O.A.C. 380; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 150 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Proudlock, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 525; 24 N.R. 199; 43 C.C.C. (2d) 321, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Bozek (1977), 34 C.C.C.(2d) 457 (Sask. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Burnison (1979), 70 C.C.C.(2d) 38 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. English (1982), 47 Alta. L.R.(2d) 372 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Grosse (P.) (1996), 91 O.A.C. 40; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1997), 209 N.R. 400; 99 O.A.C. 239 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 394, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Béland and Phillips, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 398; 79 N.R. 263; 9 Q.A.C. 293, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852; 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man.R.(2d) 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Marquard (D.), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 81; 66 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 402, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. D.D., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 275; 259 N.R. 156; 136 O.A.C. 201; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 41, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Simpson and Ochs, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 3; 81 N.R. 267; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Giesbrecht (E.H.) (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 69; 41 W.A.C. 69; 20 C.R.(4th) 73 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Giesbrecht (E.H.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 482; 168 N.R. 191; 95 Man.R.(2d) 309; 70 W.A.C. 309; 30 C.R.(4th) 391, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Olah (S.) and Ruston (J.D.) (1997), 100 O.A.C. 1; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 389 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1998), 227 N.R. 147; 117 O.A.C. 398; 121 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Fournier (J.G.) (2000), 135 B.C.A.C. 35; 221 W.A.C. 35; 143 C.C.C.(3d) 341 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2000), 261 N.R. 393; 148 B.C.A.C. 160; 243 W.A.C. 160; 146 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Molodowic (A.J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 420; 252 N.R. 250; 145 Man.R.(2d) 201; 218 W.A.C. 201; 143 C.C.C.(3d) 31, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Erven, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 926; 25 N.R. 49; 30 N.S.R.(2d) 89; 49 A.P.R. 89, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. M.C.H., [1998] 2 S.C.R. 449; 230 N.R. 1; 113 O.A.C. 97; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Park, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 64; 37 N.R. 501; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 385, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Stellato (T.) (1993), 61 O.A.C. 217; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 380 (C.A.), affd. [1994] 2 S.C.R. 478; 168 N.R. 190; 72 O.A.C. 140, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Andrews (M.A.) (1996), 178 A.R. 182; 110 W.A.C. 182; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 392 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1996), 205 N.R. 158; 193 A.R. 79; 135 W.A.C. 79; 106 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Terlecki (1983), 42 A.R. 87; 4 C.C.C.(3d) 522 (C.A.), affd. [1985] 2 S.C.R. 483; 64 N.R. 233; 65 A.R. 401; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 224, refd to. [para. 79].

Counsel:

K. Goddard, for the Crown;

T. Engel, for the accused.

This matter was heard before Allen, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on September 5, 2003.