R. v. Michell

R. v. Michell

The judge refused to direct a verdict and held that unexplained crossing of the centre line coupled with expert evidence that impairment can produce lane departure created a permissible inference of causation for the jury; exercising discretion under s.12 of the Evidence Act, the judge excluded cross-examination on the accused's prior impaired driving conviction as its prejudicial effect outweighed probative value but permitted cross-examination on a prior theft conviction.

Citation
2002 BCSC 278
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Nelson Tommy Michell
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving Causing Death / Mid Trial: Application for Directed Verdict and Ruling on Cross Examination of Accused
Outcome
Directed verdict on Count 1 refused; cross-examination limited by exclusion of prior impaired driving conviction
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving Causing Death, Directed Verdict, Cross Examination on Prior Convictions, Section 12 Evidence Act, Causation From Lane Departure
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Motor Vehicle Legislation Trial Procedure Impaired Driving Causing Death Directed Verdict Cross Examination on Prior Convictions Section 12 Evidence Act +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Nelson Tommy Michell

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving Causing Death / Mid Trial: Application for Directed Verdict and Ruling on Cross Examination of Accused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown adduced sufficient evidence to submit the 'causing death' element of impaired driving causing death to the jury or whether a directed verdict should be entered
  2. 2 Whether unexplained crossing of the centre line can be inferred to result from impairment
  3. 3 Whether prior convictions (specifically prior impaired driving) are admissible under s.12 of the Evidence Act or should be excluded as unduly prejudicial

Ratio Decidendi

The judge refused to direct a verdict and held that unexplained crossing of the centre line coupled with expert evidence that impairment can produce lane departure created a permissible inference of causation for the jury; exercising discretion under s.12 of the Evidence Act, the judge excluded cross-examination on the accused's prior impaired driving conviction as its prejudicial effect outweighed probative value but permitted cross-examination on a prior theft conviction.

Court Disposition

Directed verdict on Count 1 refused; cross-examination limited by exclusion of prior impaired driving conviction

Orders

  • Directed verdict on Count 1 denied; Count 1 (impairment causing death) to be decided by the jury
  • Crown is prohibited from referring to the accused's prior impaired driving conviction in cross-examination