R. v. Bonnell (C.),

R. v. Bonnell (C.) (2012), 410 N.B.R.(2d) 266 (TD);

    410 R.N.-B.(2e) 266; 1065 A.P.R. 266

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[English language version only]

[Version en langue anglaise seulement]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2013] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.068

Renvoi temp.: [2013] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.068

Her Majesty the Queen v. Curtis Bonnell

(N/C/7/2010; 2012 NBQB 321; 2012 NBBR 321)

Indexed As: R. v. Bonnell (C.)

Répertorié: R. v. Bonnell (C.)

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Miramichi

Ferguson, J.

September 25, 2012.

Summary:

Résumé:

The accused was charged with first degree murder of his 16 year old cousin. At issue was whether statements made by RCMP officers at the scene of the accused's arrest on an unrelated sexual assault were admissible at trial.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, held that the statements were admissible.

Editor's Note: there are several cases involving this accused.

Criminal Law - Topic 5202

Evidence and witnesses - General - Admissibility - Whether relevant and material - The accused was charged with first degree murder of his 16 year old cousin - At issue was whether statements made by RCMP officers at the scene of the accused's arrest on November 8, 2009, on an unrelated sexual assault were admissible at trial - The Crown asserted that this evidence was highly prejudicial to its case and might incline the jury to draw a negative inference with respect to all of the police officers that were involved in one of the most important aspects of the case, i.e., the taking of several statements that took place principally between November 8, 2009, and December 2, 2009 - The accused contended that to allow the Crown to excise this information from the transcript would be to take away an important aspect of what might have been the mindset of the police in this case as it emerged through the course of that time frame - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, held that the statements were admissible - The evidence met the minimal test of relevance and admissibility - It was but one small part of many, many hours of interviews that the court believed would leave the jury with a true picture of what the relationship was between Corporal Lupson (the RCMP officer who conducted the interviews) and the accused.

Droit criminel - Cote 5202

Preuve et témoins - Généralités - Admissibilité - Pertinence et caractère déterminant - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5202 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Mensa (2003), 9 C.R.(6th) 339 (Ont. S.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Morris, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 190; 48 N.R. 341; 7 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Ferris (J.M.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 756; 174 N.R. 158; 162 A.R. 108; 83 W.A.C. 108, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Truscott - see/voir Truscott, Re.

Truscott, Re (2006), 216 O.A.C. 217 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Blackman (L.), [2008] 2 S.C.R. 298; 376 N.R. 265; 239 O.A.C. 368; 2008 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. D.O.L., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 419; 161 N.R. 1; 88 Man.R.(2d) 241; 51 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Duguay (R.) (2007), 320 N.B.R.(2d) 104; 825 A.P.R. 104 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Lising (R.) et al. (2005), 341 N.R. 147; 217 B.C.A.C. 65; 358 W.A.C. 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Bari (A.) (2006), 308 N.B.R.(2d) 247; 797 A.P.R. 247; 2006 NBCA 119, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. L.B.; R. v. M.A.G. (1997), 102 O.A.C. 104; 35 O.R.(3d) 35 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Henry (D.B.) et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 609; 342 N.R. 259; 376 A.R. 1; 360 W.A.C. 1; 219 B.C.A.C. 1; 361 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 76, refd to. [para. 22].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Paciocco, David M., and Stuesser, Lee, The Law of Evidence (4th Ed. 2005), generally [para. 16].

Counsel:

Avocats:

William Richards and Katherine Gregory, for the Crown;

Gilles Lemieux, for the defence.

This motion was heard on September 25, 2012, by Ferguson, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Miramichi, who delivered the following decision orally on the same date.