R. v. Sipes

R. v. Sipes

Intercepted wiretap calls tendered by accused are admissible when offered for non-hearsay purposes (such as identifying the other party to the call or the phone number used) or to refresh a witness's memory, provided the calls are relevant and sufficiently probative; however, admission is subject to procedural safeguards (do not show transcript to witness when identification is the purpose; do not suggest dates/times are established by the Crown; play recordings under specified conditions; mark recordings for identification and place each call on a separate disk). The calls are inadmissible if offered for their truth as hearsay unless an exception applies or they provide necessary context...

Citation
2012 BCSC 2167
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Dale Gordon Sipes; Accused: Leslie Podolski; Accused: Sheldon Richard O'Donnell; Accused: Peter Manolakos; Accused: Douglas Corey Brownell
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Ruling on Admissibility of Wiretap Calls During Cross Examination of a Crown Witness
Outcome
Application by Manolakos and O'Donnell to play specified June 2005 wiretap calls granted in part with conditions
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Wiretap Interceptions, Hearsay, Refreshment of Memory, Cross Examination, Identification of Parties by Phone Number
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Wiretap Interceptions Hearsay Refreshment of Memory Cross Examination Identification of Parties by Phone Number

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Dale Gordon Sipes

Accused

Leslie Podolski

Accused

Sheldon Richard O'Donnell

Accused

Peter Manolakos

Accused

Douglas Corey Brownell

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Ruling on Admissibility of Wiretap Calls During Cross Examination of a Crown Witness

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether intercepted wiretap calls can be played by accused during the Crown's case for non-hearsay purposes such as identifying the other party and the phone number used
  2. 2 Whether such calls are admissible to refresh a witness's memory or as past recollection recorded
  3. 3 Whether calls that are statements of an accused are inadmissible absent hearsay exceptions or contextual necessity

Ratio Decidendi

Intercepted wiretap calls tendered by accused are admissible when offered for non-hearsay purposes (such as identifying the other party to the call or the phone number used) or to refresh a witness's memory, provided the calls are relevant and sufficiently probative; however, admission is subject to procedural safeguards (do not show transcript to witness when identification is the purpose; do not suggest dates/times are established by the Crown; play recordings under specified conditions; mark recordings for identification and place each call on a separate disk). The calls are inadmissible if offered for their truth as hearsay unless an exception applies or they provide necessary context...

Court Disposition

Application by Manolakos and O'Donnell to play specified June 2005 wiretap calls granted in part with conditions

Orders

  • Manolakos may play the June 23, 2005 call (Exhibit LLLL Tab 1A) to the witness during cross-examination for the non-hearsay purpose of proving Couture was a party to the call and using number 604-617-8017, but the transcript must not be shown to the witness and counsel must not imply the date/time are facts...
  • O'Donnell may play the June 12, 2005 calls to the witness in the presence of the jury to refresh the witness's memory or have the witness adopt what he said if memory is not refreshed; the RCMP summary must not be provided to the witness and counsel must not suggest that any time/date information is based on...