The accused, charged with aggravated assault and robbery, brought a pretrial motion to exclude statements he made to police during two interviews.
He argued the first statement was involuntary due to police trickery—specifically, the failure to disclose fingerprint evidence—and that he was psychologically detained, resulting in Charter breaches.
The court applied the Oickle and Grant frameworks, finding the first statement was voluntary and the accused was not detained, as he attended the station willingly and was free to leave.
Consequently, the second statement was not tainted, and all statements were ruled admissible.
