2 total
Police expert allowed to testify on common drug trafficking indicators but not accused’s knowledge.
During a criminal jury trial for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, the defence objected to the Crown calling a police officer as an expert witness on drug trafficking practices.
Following a voir dire, the court considered the admissibility of the proposed opinion evidence under the framework from Mohan.
The court held the officer was qualified through experience in drug investigations and that his proposed testimony regarding common trafficking indicators—such as multiple cell phones, separation of drugs and cash, and possession of large amounts of currency—was relevant and necessary to assist the jury in assessing the accused’s knowledge of the drugs.
The court limited the scope of the expert evidence, ruling the officer could not opine on whether the accused possessed the drugs for the purpose of trafficking or had knowledge of the cocaine.
The evidence was admitted subject to those restrictions.
Crown application to dismiss late defence Charter application granted due to non-compliance with rules and lack of merit.
The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.
Six days before the scheduled trial, the defence brought a Charter application seeking to exclude the drugs and money seized, but failed to file an Application Record or Book of Authorities as required by the Criminal Proceedings Rules.
The Crown brought an application to dismiss the defence's Charter application under Rule 34.03.
The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the defence's non-compliance with the rules was serious and prejudicial to the Crown, the history of the proceedings showed numerous missed opportunities to bring the application, and the Charter application itself had little to no merit.
