R. v. Guerrero Ayala

R. v. Guerrero Ayala

Application dismissed because the court was not satisfied that requiring the Crown to choose a mode of robbery was necessary for a fair trial: the facts disclose a single transaction applicable to all counts and all alleged modes, defence failed to demonstrate concrete prejudice beyond counsel assertion, and nothing material had changed since the court's earlier ruling.

Citation
2013 BCSC 2045
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Edgar Guerrero Ayala
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal (indictment for Aggravated Assault, Threatening, Attempted Murder and Robbery) / Application for Particulars Under S.587 at Close of Crown's Case, Before Accused's Election
Outcome
Application for particulars under s.587 dismissed; Crown not required to specify mode of robbery.
Legal Topics
Robbery, Particulars (s.587), Mode of Robbery (s.343), Fair Trial, Election to Testify
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Procedural Law Robbery Particulars (s.587) Mode of Robbery (s.343) Fair Trial Election to Testify

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Edgar Guerrero Ayala

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (indictment for Aggravated Assault, Threatening, Attempted Murder and Robbery) / Application for Particulars Under S.587 at Close of Crown's Case, Before Accused's Election

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown must specify which subsection of s.343(a)-(d) (mode of robbery) it relies upon as particulars under s.587
  2. 2 Whether failure to specify a mode of robbery prejudices the accused's ability to make an informed election to testify
  3. 3 Whether the evidence discloses multiple transactions such that the Crown should be required to elect a mode

Ratio Decidendi

Application dismissed because the court was not satisfied that requiring the Crown to choose a mode of robbery was necessary for a fair trial: the facts disclose a single transaction applicable to all counts and all alleged modes, defence failed to demonstrate concrete prejudice beyond counsel assertion, and nothing material had changed since the court's earlier ruling.

Court Disposition

Application for particulars under s.587 dismissed; Crown not required to specify mode of robbery.

Orders

  • Application for particulars under s.587 dismissed.
  • Crown indicated on the record it will only rely on cocaine and a cellular phone as the stolen property for the robbery count.