R. v. Hernandez

R. v. Hernandez

The cumulative effect of prolonged questioning (6.5 hours), repeated officer rotations, persistent continuation despite explicit protests, minimization tactics and suggestions regarding the accused's brother produced mostly one‑word or suggested acknowledgements and created a reasonable doubt as to voluntariness; accordingly the Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt and the interview is inadmissible.

Citation
2008 BCSC 671
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Jose Hernandez; Accused: Anh The Nguyen; Accused: Joshua Ponicappo; Accused: Sam Tuan Vu; Accused: Van Van Vu
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire (admissibility of Statement)
Outcome
Interview evidence excluded (inadmissible)
Legal Topics
Voluntariness of Statement, Interview Techniques, Admissibility of Confession, Publication Ban
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Police Procedure Voluntariness of Statement Interview Techniques Admissibility of Confession Publication Ban

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

Parties

Regina

Crown

Jose Hernandez

Accused

Anh The Nguyen

Accused

Joshua Ponicappo

Accused

Sam Tuan Vu

Accused

Van Van Vu

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire (admissibility of Statement)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interview statements were voluntary
  2. 2 Whether police interview techniques cumulatively rendered the statements involuntary
  3. 3 Whether Crown proved voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The cumulative effect of prolonged questioning (6.5 hours), repeated officer rotations, persistent continuation despite explicit protests, minimization tactics and suggestions regarding the accused's brother produced mostly one‑word or suggested acknowledgements and created a reasonable doubt as to voluntariness; accordingly the Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt and the interview is inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Interview evidence excluded (inadmissible)

Orders

  • Interview of Sam Tuan Vu (audio/video and transcript) excluded as inadmissible evidence
  • Ban on publication identifying Witness X and Witness Y pursuant to Criminal Code s.486.5(1)