David Morgan

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter for causing the death of Kenneth Chopee on January 25, 2023.

The accused discovered his personal property in the victim's possession, became enraged, and attacked the victim with bolt cutters and a knife, inflicting devastating injuries including multiple skull fractures and stab wounds.

The accused did not form the specific intent to kill due to his excessive consumption of fentanyl and benzodiazepines.

The court imposed a sentence of 9.5 years custody, accounting for harsh pre-trial detention conditions and mistreatment by police following arrest.

The sentence reflects the serious nature of the violent offense while considering the accused's rehabilitative efforts in custody and difficult background.

The Crown applied to introduce an out-of-court video statement of a deceased witness for the truth of its contents under the principled exception to the hearsay rule in a second-degree murder trial.

The witness was under the influence of fentanyl and extremely fatigued during the police interview, which was replete with leading questions and internal inconsistencies.

The court found that the statement lacked both procedural and substantive reliability.

The corroborative evidence, including video surveillance and preliminary hearing testimony of another witness, failed to rule out alternative explanations for the material aspects of the statement.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was arrested for drug-impaired driving after being found asleep at the wheel of a motor vehicle in the middle of a road.

Police obtained blood samples pursuant to a newly enacted provision of the Criminal Code that had come into force only four days prior.

The trial judge found multiple Charter breaches: failure to inform the accused of a drug possession charge before consulting counsel (not a breach but a factor in cumulative analysis); failure to provide a further opportunity to consult counsel after making a blood demand at the police station; failure to provide a further opportunity to consult counsel when the hospital refused to take blood samples without the accused's consent; and failure to obtain valid consent to the seizure of blood samples.

The blood samples and toxicology evidence were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Without the excluded evidence, the Crown could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by a drug.

The accused was acquitted.