R. v. Vuozzo (A.B.) et al.

• Jurisdiction: Alberta
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Judge: Paperny,Sulatycky,Watson
• Neutral Citation: 2013 ABCA 130
• Citation: (2013), 544 A.R. 271,2013 ABCA 130,544 AR 271,(2013), 544 AR 271,544 A.R. 271
• Date: 18 April 2013

R. v. Vuozzo (A.B.) (2013), 544 A.R. 271; 567 W.A.C. 271 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] A.R. TBEd. AP.073

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Alexander Benjamin Vuozzo (appellant)

(1001-0254-A; 2013 ABCA 130)

Indexed As: R. v. Vuozzo (A.B.) et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Paperny and Watson, JJ.A., and Sulatycky, J.(ad hoc)

April 18, 2013.

Summary:

The accused (Vuozzo) and co-accused were arrested for the murder of a robbery victim. The accused applied to exclude the latter part of his statement to police from evidence on the ground that it resulted from an inducement and was, accordingly, not proved to be voluntary.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported (2010), 534 A.R. 29, held that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the entire statement was voluntarily made and admissible. The accused and co-accused admittedly broke into the victim's residence for the purpose of committing an indictable offence (steal victim's marijuana). The victim died from a stab wound inflicted by the accused. Both the accused and co-accused were charged with break and enter. The accused was also charged with second degree murder. Statements made to undercover police officers engaged in a "Mr. Big" sting operation were also admitted into evidence (see [2010] A.R. Uned. 779).

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported (2010), 534 A.R. 35, convicted the accused of break and enter and second degree murder. The accused appealed his second degree murder conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in finding that he had the requisite intent to support a murder conviction. Particularly, the accused argued that the statements made to the undercover officers in the "Mr. Big" operation were the result of Charter breaches (arbitrary detention and right to silence) and should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter. Finally, the accused argued that even if admissible, the statements combined with the other evidence did not support a finding of intent to murder.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The voluntarily made statements were admissible and reliable. They were not obtained in violation of the Charter. The court stated that "the evidence in this case was overwhelming and clearly supported the guilty verdict of second degree murder".

Civil Rights - Topic 3160

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to remain silent and protection against self-incrimination (Charter, s. 7) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - The accused was the target of a "Mr. Big" undercover operation in Vancouver respecting a Calgary murder - One of the scenarios was a pre-planned police stop of the vehicle in which the accused and an undercover officer were driving - The purpose was not to obtain inculpatory evidence, but as a means of conveying to the accused that the police in Calgary wished to speak with him respecting the murder - The undercover officer encouraged the accused to give his real name - This was all part of the ruse to eventually have the accused confess his involvement in the murder to the "boss", which he did - The accused sought to have his statements to the "boss" excluded from evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing that they were tainted by his arbitrary detention (s. 9) and the infringement of his right to remain silent (s. 7) - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the accused's Charter rights were not infringed - The pre-planned stop was not "arbitrary" - The stop had ample rational justification as part of the ongoing investigation - The court noted that "the police here had no plan and made no effort to extract any inculpatory information from the [accused]" - They merely misled the accused, which was necessarily incidental to the undercover operation - The fact that the traffic stop was a "ruse" did not render it an arbitrary detention - Further, there was no "detention" as contemplated by R. v. Grant (SCC) - The accused asked whether he was being arrested - The police responded "no" - There was no significant physical or psychological restraint - The accused responding to a request to provide his name did not infringe his s. 7 Charter right to remain silent - Finally, even if there was a denial of Charter rights, the evidence would not have been excluded under s. 24(2) - The trial judge did not err in finding no link between the traffic stop ruse and the accused's statements to the "boss" - See paragraphs 37 to 69.

Civil Rights - Topic 3604

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes detention - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1273

Murder - Murder during commission of other offences - Intention - The accused (Vuozzo and Wozny) admitted breaking into the victim's residence to steal his marijuana - Vuozzo and the victim struggled - Vuozzo stabbed the victim multiple times with a machete, causing his death - Both accused fled - Vuozzo was charged with second degree murder - He argued that he lacked the requisite mens rea for murder, that he should only be convicted of manslaughter - Vuozzo admitted intending to "hurt him", but denied intending to kill him - He stabbed the victim six or seven times in the centre of his back with a 33.4 centimetre long machete, pushing the machete in until the handle reached the victim's back - The trial judge found Vuozzo guilty of murder, stating that "the only logical inference I can draw is that Mr. Vuozzo had the intent to cause bodily harm to [the victim], and he knew that the bodily harm he inflicted ... was of such a nature that it was likely to result in death" - The court disbelieved Vuozzo's testimony that "this was a complete accident" and "it was unintentional" - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed Vuozzo's appeal, stating that "the verdict of the trial judge on the question of intent under s. 229(a)(ii) of the Code is reasonable and can be supported by the evidence".

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Nygaard and Schimmens, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1074; 101 N.R. 108; 102 A.R. 186, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Cooper, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 146; 146 N.R. 367; 103 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 209; 326 A.P.R. 209, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Walle (A.J.), [2012] 2 S.C.R. 438; 433 N.R. 1; 533 A.R. 1; 557 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Daley - see R. v. W.J.D.

R. v. W.J.D., [2007] 3 S.C.R. 523; 369 N.R. 225; 302 Sask.R. 4; 411 W.A.C. 4; 2007 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Shepherd (C.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 527; 391 N.R. 132; 331 Sask.R. 306; 460 W.A.C. 306; 2009 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Dionisi (A.P.) (2012), 519 A.R. 313; 539 W.A.C. 313; 2012 ABCA 20, refd to. [para. 28].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Hillgardener (A.R.) (2010), 477 A.R. 200; 483 W.A.C. 200; 2010 ABCA 80, refd to. [para. 28].

PHS Community Services Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 134; 421 N.R. 1; 310 B.C.A.C. 1; 526 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 29].

Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791; 335 N.R. 25; 2005 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 29].

Bedford et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2012), 290 O.A.C. 236; 109 O.R.(3d) 1; 2012 ONCA 186, leave to appeal granted (2012), 440 N.R. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Mann (P.H.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59; 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Waterfield, [1963] 3 All E.R. 659, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Suberu (M.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 460; 390 N.R. 303; 252 O.A.C. 340; 2009 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Mack (D.R.) (2012), 522 A.R. 262; 544 W.A.C. 262; 2012 ABCA 42, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. 2821109 Canada Inc. et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 227; 281 N.R. 267; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 270; 636 A.P.R. 270; 2002 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Law - see R. v. 2821109 Canada Inc. et al.

R. v. Harding (S.G.) (2010), 482 A.R. 262; 490 W.A.C. 262; 2010 ABCA 180, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Loewen (D.J.) (2010), 490 A.R. 72; 497 W.A.C. 72; 2010 ABCA 255, affd. [2011] 2 S.C.R. 167; 415 N.R. 397; 502 A.R. 3; 517 W.A.C. 3; 2011 SCC 21, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Côté (A.), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 215; 421 N.R. 112; 2011 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Beaulieu (G.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 248; 398 N.R. 345; 2010 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Cole (R.) et al., [2012] 3 S.C.R. 34; 436 N.R. 102; 297 O.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. D.H.W., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 235; 375 N.R. 217; 255 B.C.A.C. 1; 430 W.A.C. 1; 2008 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Wittwer - see R. v. D.H.W.

R. v. Plaha (B.) (2004), 189 O.A.C. 376; 188 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Goldhart (W.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 463; 198 N.R. 321; 92 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Orbanski (C.); R. v. Elias (D.J.), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 3; 335 N.R. 342; 195 Man.R.(2d) 161; 2005 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Ashmore (J.A.) (2011), 298 B.C.A.C. 240; 505 W.A.C. 240; 267 C.C.C.(3d) 108; 2011 BCCA 18, leave to appeal denied (2012), 432 N.R. 392 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Chung (K.W.) (2011), 302 B.C.A.C. 266; 511 W.A.C. 266; 267 C.C.C.(3d) 393; 2011 BCCA 131, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Singh (J.), [2007] 3 S.C.R. 405; 369 N.R. 1; 249 B.C.A.C. 1; 414 W.A.C. 1; 2007 SCC 48, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Liew (K.L.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 227; 244 N.R. 249; 244 A.R. 1; 209 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Fliss (P.W.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 535; 283 N.R. 120; 163 B.C.A.C. 1; 267 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 16, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. McIntyre (M.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 480; 168 N.R. 308; 153 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 392 A.P.R. 161, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Grandinetti (C.H.), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 27; 329 N.R. 28; 363 A.R. 1; 343 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Cayer et al. (1988), 28 O.A.C. 105; 66 C.R.(3d) 30 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Lee (L.L.) (2007), 417 A.R. 331; 410 W.A.C. 331; 2007 ABCA 337, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Moran (1987), 21 O.A.C. 257; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. MacMillan (T.) (2013), 302 O.A.C. 161; 2013 ONCA 109, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Bennight (R.) (2012), 320 B.C.A.C. 195; 543 W.A.C. 195 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2012), 447 N.R. 387 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Moore, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 195; 24 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Guthrie (1982), 39 A.R. 435; 69 C.C.C.(2d) 216 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

Rice v. Connolly, [1966] 2 Q.B. 414; [1966] 2 All E.R. 649, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Faid, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 265; 46 N.R. 461, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. M.A.A. (2012), 328 B.C.A.C. 189; 558 W.A.C. 189; 2012 BCCA 402, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Arrieta - see R. v. M.A.A.

R. v. James (J.A.) (2013), 331 B.C.A.C. 292; 565 W.A.C. 292; 2013 BCCA 11, refd to. [para. 73].

Counsel:

C.E. Rideout, for the respondent;

K.B. Molle, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on December 4, 2012, before Paperny and Watson, JJ.A., and Sulatycky, J.(ad hoc), of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On April 18, 2013, the following memorandum of judgment was filed by the Court.