The appellant, diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, was convicted of non-capital murder.
On appeal, he argued that the trial judge erred in admitting inculpatory statements made to police, contending that statements by an insane person are inadmissible or that the wrong test for voluntariness was applied.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that there is no absolute rule barring statements from insane persons.
The Court found the trial judge properly considered whether the statements were freely and voluntarily made and represented an operating mind.
