On a Crown application in a criminal prosecution, the court determined the admissibility of utterances made by an intoxicated accused to police attending a reported firearms incident.
Applying the confessions rule and the operating mind requirement, the court held that ordinary signs of impairment did not establish the very high degree of intoxication necessary to negate voluntariness.
The accused remained responsive, lucid, ambulatory, and aware he was speaking to police officers who could use his words to his detriment.
The utterances were therefore ruled voluntary and admissible.
