R. v. Belliveau

R. v. Belliveau

The court held that statements and utterances made by the accused at the scene, in the police car and at the detachment before placement in cells (pre-02:54) are inadmissible for their truth because the judge was left with a reasonable doubt that the accused lacked an operating mind and voluntariness; those...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2000 BCSC 344
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Lucky John Paul Belliveau; Deceased: Oksana Rogalsky
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Second Degree Murder / Pre Trial Voir Dire / Rulings on Admissibility
Outcome
Voir dire rulings: selective exclusion and admission of contested evidence as detailed
Legal Topics
Hearsay Exceptions (khan/smith), Admissibility of Statements and Utterances, Operating Mind/voluntariness, Right to Counsel S.10(b), Right to Silence and S.7, Exclusionary Remedy S.24(2), Similar Fact Evidence, Editing of Statements
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Charter Rights Hearsay Exceptions (khan/smith) Admissibility of Statements and Utterances Operating Mind/voluntariness Right to Counsel S.10(b) Right to Silence and S.7 +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Lucky John Paul Belliveau

Accused

Oksana Rogalsky

Deceased

Procedural Posture

Criminal Second Degree Murder / Pre Trial Voir Dire / Rulings on Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accused's utterances at scene, in police car and at detachment prior to 02:54 are admissible for their truth
  2. 2 Whether accused had an operating mind when making various utterances
  3. 3 Whether taped interview (~06:30) should be excluded for Charter breaches (s.10(b), s.7)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that statements and utterances made by the accused at the scene, in the police car and at the detachment before placement in cells (pre-02:54) are inadmissible for their truth because the judge was left with a reasonable doubt that the accused lacked an operating mind and voluntariness; those utterances are admissible only to show the accused's state of mind. Statements at about 02:45 and shortly after at the detachment were voluntary, the accused understood his rights and are admissible. The taped interview at ~06:30 was excluded under s.24(2) because police failed to afford a reasonable opportunity to counsel after the accused invoked his s.10(b) right and continued...

Court Disposition

Voir dire rulings: selective exclusion and admission of contested evidence as detailed

Orders

  • Statements/utterances by accused at scene, in police car and at detachment prior to 02:54 excluded for their truth but admissible to show accused's state of mind
  • Statements made at detachment at about 02:45 and shortly thereafter admitted as voluntary and knowing, including understanding of Charter rights