R. v. Aeichele

R. v. Aeichele

Constable Minkley is qualified to give expert evidence on packaging and concealment of street-level drugs, pricing, methods of sale, possession patterns, street drug jargon and dial-a-dope operations, but he is not qualified to opine on drug consumption patterns as they may relate to these accused because such opinion is largely anecdotal, not necessary to assist the trier of fact for these accused, and fails the necessity/probative balance under Mohan.

Citation
2020 BCSC 2309
Parties
Crown/prosecution: Regina; Accused: Cheryl Lynn Aeichele; Accused: Elkena Michael Knauff
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire Expert Qualification
Outcome
Partly allowed: expert qualified in specified areas but excluded from giving opinion on drug consumption patterns as they relate to the accused
Legal Topics
Expert Qualification, Mohan Test, Opinion Evidence, Admissibility, Gatekeeping, Drug Offences, Prejudice Vs Probative Value
Source Language
English
Evidence Criminal Law Expert Evidence Expert Qualification Mohan Test Opinion Evidence Admissibility Gatekeeping +2 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 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown/prosecution

Cheryl Lynn Aeichele

Accused

Elkena Michael Knauff

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire Expert Qualification

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Constable Daniel Minkley is qualified to give opinion evidence on drug consumption patterns of street users and as applied to these accused
  2. 2 Whether Minkley's proposed opinions meet the Mohan criteria for admissibility
  3. 3 Scope of permissible expert evidence regarding packaging, concealment, pricing, methods of sale, slang and trafficking operations

Ratio Decidendi

Constable Minkley is qualified to give expert evidence on packaging and concealment of street-level drugs, pricing, methods of sale, possession patterns, street drug jargon and dial-a-dope operations, but he is not qualified to opine on drug consumption patterns as they may relate to these accused because such opinion is largely anecdotal, not necessary to assist the trier of fact for these accused, and fails the necessity/probative balance under Mohan.

Court Disposition

Partly allowed: expert qualified in specified areas but excluded from giving opinion on drug consumption patterns as they relate to the accused

Orders

  • Constable Daniel Minkley is qualified to testify as an expert in packaging and concealment of street-level drugs, pricing of fentanyl, methamphetamine and cocaine, methods of sale, possession of street-level drugs, street drug jargon and slang, and the operations of dial-a-dope trafficking businesses.
  • Constable Daniel Minkley is not permitted to give opinion evidence on drug consumption patterns as they may relate to the accused in this case, including opinions about consumption rates varying by tolerance, weight or health.