R. v. Seguin

R. v. Seguin

Time as specified in the Information was not an essential element in this case; amendment of the Information to a date range (March 1–25, 2009) was permissible under s.601(4.1) without causing irremediable prejudice; there was some evidence on each essential element of possession and accessing such that a reasonable...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2014 NSPC 119
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Gregory Leo Seguin
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial — After Crown Closed; Crown S.601(4.1) Amendment Motion and Defence Directed Verdict Motion
Outcome
Crown motion to amend Information granted; defence motion for directed verdict dismissed
Legal Topics
Possession of Child Pornography, Accessing Child Pornography, Amendment of Information Under S.601(4.1), Directed Verdict, Knowledge and Control in Possession
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Computer Forensics Possession of Child Pornography Accessing Child Pornography Amendment of Information Under S.601(4.1) Directed Verdict Knowledge and Control in Possession

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Gregory Leo Seguin

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial — After Crown Closed; Crown S.601(4.1) Amendment Motion and Defence Directed Verdict Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether time specified in the Information is an essential element such that an amendment under s.601(4.1) is impermissible
  2. 2 Whether amendment of the Information to broaden the date range would cause irremediable prejudice to the accused
  3. 3 Whether there is any evidence upon which a reasonable jury properly instructed could convict on charges of possession and accessing child pornography (directed verdict test)

Ratio Decidendi

Time as specified in the Information was not an essential element in this case; amendment of the Information to a date range (March 1–25, 2009) was permissible under s.601(4.1) without causing irremediable prejudice; there was some evidence on each essential element of possession and accessing such that a reasonable jury properly instructed could convict, therefore the defence motion for a directed verdict is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Crown motion to amend Information granted; defence motion for directed verdict dismissed

Orders

  • Information amended to specify the time of the alleged offences as occurring between March 1, 2009 and March 25, 2009
  • Defence motion for a directed verdict dismissed