R. v. Zinter

R. v. Zinter

On the accepted evidence, including credible eyewitness testimony, expert collision reconstruction, medical and police observations of intoxication, and cellphone records indicating distraction, the accused's driving constituted an objectively dangerous manner that amounted to a marked departure from the standard of care; he left the scene to avoid liability and wilfully refused a lawful breath demand. Those findings satisfy both actus reus and mens rea for dangerous operation causing death, leaving the scene, and refusal to provide a breath sample; guilty verdicts on all three counts were therefore required.

Citation
2018 BCSC 1385
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Dustin Dennis Zinter
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Verdict (guilty)
Outcome
Accused found guilty on all counts
Legal Topics
Dangerous Operation Causing Death, Leaving Scene of an Accident to Avoid Liability, Refusal to Provide Breath Sample, Mens Rea (marked Departure), Expert Collision Reconstruction, Credibility of Accused
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Motor Vehicle Law Evidence Law Dangerous Operation Causing Death Leaving Scene of an Accident to Avoid Liability Refusal to Provide Breath Sample Mens Rea (marked Departure) Expert Collision Reconstruction +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Dustin Dennis Zinter

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Verdict (guilty)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused's manner of driving constituted dangerous operation causing death under s.249(4) Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether the accused left the scene to avoid civil or criminal liability contrary to s.252(1.2) Criminal Code
  3. 3 Whether the accused wilfully refused a lawful demand for a breath sample under s.255(2.2) Criminal Code and s.254(2) demand authority

Ratio Decidendi

On the accepted evidence, including credible eyewitness testimony, expert collision reconstruction, medical and police observations of intoxication, and cellphone records indicating distraction, the accused's driving constituted an objectively dangerous manner that amounted to a marked departure from the standard of care; he left the scene to avoid liability and wilfully refused a lawful breath demand. Those findings satisfy both actus reus and mens rea for dangerous operation causing death, leaving the scene, and refusal to provide a breath sample; guilty verdicts on all three counts were therefore required.

Court Disposition

Accused found guilty on all counts

Orders

  • Convicted of Count 1: dangerous operation causing death (s.249(4) Criminal Code)
  • Convicted of Count 2: leaving the scene to avoid liability (s.252(1.2) Criminal Code)