R. v. D.T.W.D.

R. v. D.T.W.D.

Because the utterance was an unsolicited, spontaneous oral statement made during the execution of a search warrant and before the police had a reasonable opportunity to fully comply with s.146, the s.146(3) exception applied and the utterance was admissible.

Citation
2012 NSPC 58
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: D.T.W.D.
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal (youth) / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Statement
Outcome
Voir dire finding: utterance admissible under s.146(3) YCJA
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Statements, Right to Counsel, Parental Presence, S146 YCJA, Spontaneous Statements, Search Warrant Execution
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Youth Criminal Justice Act Evidence Admissibility of Statements Right to Counsel Parental Presence S146 YCJA Spontaneous Statements +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

D.T.W.D.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (youth) / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Statement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral utterance by a young person made during arrest is admissible under s.146 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act
  2. 2 Whether police had a reasonable opportunity to comply with s.146 before the utterance
  3. 3 Whether the s.146(3) exception for spontaneous statements applies

Ratio Decidendi

Because the utterance was an unsolicited, spontaneous oral statement made during the execution of a search warrant and before the police had a reasonable opportunity to fully comply with s.146, the s.146(3) exception applied and the utterance was admissible.

Court Disposition

Voir dire finding: utterance admissible under s.146(3) YCJA

Orders

  • Crown application to admit the alleged utterance granted