Etai Hilzenrat

This decision addresses a voir dire application in a murder trial to determine the voluntariness and admissibility of three statements made by the accused to police.

The court found the August 22, 2006 telephone statement and the November 8, 2006 video statement to be voluntary and admissible.

Portions of the November 8, 2006 surreptitiously audio-recorded statement were deemed admissible, specifically those relating to the murder investigation, while police opinions and commentary on unrelated criminal investigations were excluded due to prejudicial effect outweighing probative value.

The court rejected arguments that the accused was induced, misled about his status or the use of the interview, or that the statements' prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value.

An extradition judge considered whether the statutory test for committal under s. 29(1)(a) of the Extradition Act was met for a person sought by the United States on drug conspiracy charges.

The requesting state relied on certified Records of the Case and supplementary records containing wiretap interceptions, evidence of large drug seizures in the United States, and a search of the respondent’s residence revealing significant cash proceeds.

The court applied the double criminality principle and the prima facie standard applicable at extradition hearings.

Finding sufficient admissible evidence that could justify committal for trial in Canada for conspiracy to traffic in Schedule I and II substances under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and being satisfied as to identity, the court ordered committal to await surrender.

The appellant was convicted of drug trafficking and possessing proceeds of crime after the trial judge discharged two jurors during deliberations.

The jury had reported a stalemate, with ten voting to convict and two to acquit.

Following complaints from other jurors, the trial judge conducted extensive inquiries into the two dissenting jurors' conduct and ultimately discharged them.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's inquiries improperly probed the content of the deliberations, undermining jury secrecy.

The discharge of the two holdout jurors created an appearance of unfairness, resulting in an unfair trial.

The convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.