The Crown sought a ruling on the voluntariness and admissibility of the accused's videotaped statement to Detective Parsons.
The defence argued the statement was involuntary due to improper leading questions and the accused's intoxication, which allegedly overbore his will and compromised his operating mind.
The court found that the police questioning was proper, the accused was the first to identify the victim as a pedestrian, and there was no evidence of oppressive circumstances or that the accused lacked an operating mind despite alcohol consumption.
The statement was deemed voluntary and admissible.
