R. v. Jessome

R. v. Jessome

The cumulative driving evidence (repeated crossing of the centre line and weaving observed over a stretch of road), corroborating non-driving indicators (odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, staggering, slurred speech), comparative testimony including a previously qualified technician's opinion, and the officers' sober comparisons proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was impaired while driving under s.253(a).

Citation
2006 NSPC 65
Parties
Crown/prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused/defence: John Perry Jessome
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial Judgment (conviction)
Outcome
Accused found guilty of impaired driving under s.253(a) of the Criminal Code.
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Non Expert Opinion Evidence, Burden of Proof, Comparative Evidence, Breath Sample/technician Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Impaired Driving Non Expert Opinion Evidence Burden of Proof Comparative Evidence Breath Sample/technician Evidence

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown/prosecution

John Perry Jessome

Accused/defence

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial Judgment (conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was driving while impaired by alcohol contrary to s.253(a) of the Criminal Code
  2. 2 Admissibility and weight of non-expert opinion evidence from police and qualified technician
  3. 3 Proper evidential weight where no contemporaneous breath test was obtained

Ratio Decidendi

The cumulative driving evidence (repeated crossing of the centre line and weaving observed over a stretch of road), corroborating non-driving indicators (odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, staggering, slurred speech), comparative testimony including a previously qualified technician's opinion, and the officers' sober comparisons proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was impaired while driving under s.253(a).

Court Disposition

Accused found guilty of impaired driving under s.253(a) of the Criminal Code.

Orders

  • Accused found guilty as charged (conviction entered).