R. v. Jessome

R. v. Jessome

The spontaneous utterances at arrest were admissible and, combined with credible witness evidence and circumstantial indicators (ownership of the vehicle, airbag dust, witness observations and behaviour), the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Jessome was the driver; the alleged admission to paramedics in lock-up was excluded for reliability reasons; there were sufficient grounds for a s.254 demand and the refusal was clear, so convictions on refusal (s.254(5)) and impaired driving causing bodily harm (s.255(2)) follow with a stay on the included s.253(1)(a) offence.

Citation
2021 NSPC 50
Parties
Crown: He Majesty the Queen; Accused: Mark Charles Jessome
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm and Refusal to Provide Breath Sample / Provincial Court Judgment (decision)
Outcome
Guilty on s.254(5) (refusal) and s.255(2) (impaired driving causing bodily harm); stay of proceedings on included offence s.253(1)(a) (impaired driving)
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Refusal to Provide Breath Sample, Admissibility of Statements, Spontaneous Utterance, After the Fact Conduct, Reasonable Grounds for Demand
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Constitutional Law (charter) Impaired Driving Refusal to Provide Breath Sample Admissibility of Statements Spontaneous Utterance After the Fact Conduct +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

He Majesty the Queen

Crown

Mark Charles Jessome

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm and Refusal to Provide Breath Sample / Provincial Court Judgment (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of spontaneous utterance made on arrest
  2. 2 Admissibility of alleged admission to paramedic in lock-up
  3. 3 Sufficiency of grounds for breath demand and validity of refusal

Ratio Decidendi

The spontaneous utterances at arrest were admissible and, combined with credible witness evidence and circumstantial indicators (ownership of the vehicle, airbag dust, witness observations and behaviour), the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Jessome was the driver; the alleged admission to paramedics in lock-up was excluded for reliability reasons; there were sufficient grounds for a s.254 demand and the refusal was clear, so convictions on refusal (s.254(5)) and impaired driving causing bodily harm (s.255(2)) follow with a stay on the included s.253(1)(a) offence.

Court Disposition

Guilty on s.254(5) (refusal) and s.255(2) (impaired driving causing bodily harm); stay of proceedings on included offence s.253(1)(a) (impaired driving)

Orders

  • Findings of guilty entered on s.254(5) and s.255(2)
  • Stay of proceedings entered on s.253(1)(a)