R. v. White (M.J.), 2006 ABQB 788

• Judge: Moreau, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 27, 2006
• Citations: 2006 ABQB 788;(2006), 408 A.R. 1 (QB)

R. v. White (M.J.) (2006), 408 A.R. 1 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. DE.071

Her Majesty the Queen v. Michael James White (accused)

(050830629Q1; 2006 ABQB 788)

Indexed As: R. v. White (M.J.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Moreau, J.

October 27, 2006.

Summary:

White was charged with offences relating to the death of his wife. A voir dire was held to hear White's request for editing of statements made to police during an interview.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled that certain passages of the statements were to be excised.

Civil Rights - Topic 4302

Protection against self-incrimination - Right to remain silent - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 5357 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 136

Rights of accused - Right to silence - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 5357 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5357

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Exclusion of irrelevant or prejudicial portions (editing) - White was charged with offences relating to the death of his wife - Asserting a violation of his right to silence, White requested that a police interview be edited to exclude all references made by him regarding seeking his counsel's guidance before speaking further and before providing DNA samples - The Crown asserted that none of the exchanges incriminated White and that to excise some would remove the jury's ability to observe White's responses in the overall interview context and thus shed light on his mental state - A voir dire was held - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled that the exchanges that addressed White's right to silence and his desire to speak to counsel before responding or providing DNA samples were to be excised - While the exchanges were not incriminating, they might leave the impression that White had something to hide, which was inimical to his right to remain silent - See paragraphs 13 to 23.

Criminal Law - Topic 5357

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Exclusion of irrelevant or prejudicial portions (editing) - White was charged with offences relating to the death of his wife - A voir dire was held to hear White's request for editing of statements made to police during an interview - At issue were passages dealing with White's departure from the military - The defence objected to the admission of references to White having been ejected from the military, asserting that this was hearsay and that any probative value attaching to White's response was greatly outweighed by its prejudicial effect as it reflected on White's character, which was not in issue - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the references should be excised from the statement - However, the court added that it would be unfair to allow into evidence an earlier statement by White that he had left the military for his family - This statement was also to be excised as it could leave the jury with a potentially incomplete, if not incorrect, impression - White was entitled to a fair trial, but not one that, through the editing process, might mislead the jury - See paragraphs 32 to 43.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Buhay (M.A.), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 631; 305 N.R. 158; 177 Man.R.(2d) 72; 304 W.A.C. 72, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Kanester, [1966] 4 C.C.C. 231 (B.C.C.A.), revd. [1967] 1 C.C.C. 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Noor Mohamed v. R., [1949] A.C. 182 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Beatty, [1944] S.C.R. 73, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Thiffault, [1933] S.C.R. 509, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Dubois (1986), 13 O.A.C. 342; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 325 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Jacobson (C.); R. v. Hall (S.), [2004] O.T.C. 1209; 2004 CarswellOnt 6675 (Sup. Ct.), appld. [para. 10].

R. v. Grewall (A.S.) et al., [2000] B.C.T.C. 909 (S.C.), appld. [para. 10].

R. v. Ouellette (G.A.) (1997), 200 A.R. 363; 146 W.A.C. 363 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Hebert (1990), 110 N.R. 1; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Creighton (D.J.) and Crawford (C.) (1995), 179 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 359; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Chambers (No. 2) (1990), 119 N.R. 321; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Turcotte (T.) (2005), 339 N.R. 32; 216 B.C.A.C. 1; 356 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 50, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Dore (D.) (2002), 162 O.A.C. 56; 166 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. S.C.B. (1997), 104 O.A.C. 81; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 530 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Oickle (R.F.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3; 259 N.R. 227; 187 N.S.R.(2d) 201; 585 A.P.R. 201, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. F.F.B. (1993), 148 N.R. 161; 120 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 332 A.P.R. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 112 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Redd (V.) (1999), 13 B.C.T.C. 1 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Wilson (G.R.) (1999), 138 Man.R.(2d) 139; 202 W.A.C. 139; 136 C.C.C.(3d) 252 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1999), 252 N.R. 193; 148 Man.R.(2d) 158; 224 W.A.C. 158; 140 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Corbett (1988), 85 N.R. 81; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

Counsel:

Troy Couillard and Domina Hussain, for the Crown;

L. Anderson, Q.C., and Laura K. Stevens, Q.C., for the accused.

This voir dire was heard on October 23-24, 2006, by Moreau, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following voir dire ruling on October 27, 2006.