R. v. Seper (M.E.), (1997) 207 A.R. 296 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Daniel, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: August 14, 1997
• Citations: (1997), 207 A.R. 296 (ProvCt)

R. v. Seper (M.E.) (1997), 207 A.R. 296 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] A.R. TBEd. SE.021

Her Majesty the Queen v. Marty Edward Seper

(Docket No. 70784483P10101-0114)

Indexed As: R. v. Seper (M.E.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Daniel, P.C.J.

August 14, 1997.

Summary:

Petersen implicated the accused, Seper, in a string of robberies in statements made to police on two different dates. Petersen refused to be sworn or testify at Seper's pre­liminary inquiry. The Crown applied to admit the statements.

The Alberta Provincial Court denied the application because the statements did not meet the threshold tests of necessity and reliability.

Criminal Law - Topic 3595

Preliminary inquiry - Evidence - State­ment of witness unavailable for prelimi­nary inquiry - [See Evidence - Topic 1527 ].

Evidence - Topic 1527

Hearsay rule - Hearsay rule exceptions and exclusions - Where admission of hearsay necessary and evidence reliable - Petersen implicated the accused, Seper, in a string of robberies in statements made to police on two different dates - Petersen refused to be sworn or testify at Seper's preliminary inquiry - The Crown applied to admit the statements - The Alberta Provincial Court dismissed the application - The statements were not reliable - Fur­ther, they did not meet the test of necessity where Petersen might ultimately elect to give evidence at trial and the Criminal Code fully set out the remedies and options available to deal with a recalcitrant witness otherwise than by admitting state­ments of the nature and kind sought to be admitted here.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. K.G.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740; 148 N.R. 241; 61 O.A.C. 1; 19 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Smith (A.L.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 257, dist. [para. 4].

R. v. Hawkins (K.R.) and Morin (C.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1043; 204 N.R. 241; 96 O.A.C. 81; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 129 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Khan (A.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353, dist. [para. 13].

R. v. Bubley (1976), 1 A.R. 37; 32 C.C.C.(2d) 79 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

United States of America v. Shephard, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067; 9 N.R. 215; 30 C.C.C.(2d) 424; 70 D.L.R.(3d) 136; 34 C.R.N.S. 207, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Herman (1984), 30 Sask.R. 148; 38 C.R.(3d) 284 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Counsel:

L. Robertson, for the Crown;

A. Ouellette, for the defence.

This voir dire was heard by Daniel, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on August 14, 1997.