Sid M. Tarrabain

The appellant was arrested in connection with a cocaine transaction and placed in a cell with an undercover police officer.

The appellant initiated a conversation about the arrest, during which the undercover officer asked 'What happened?' and mentioned that his fingerprints were on the drugs, prompting the appellant to admit his fingerprints were also on the drugs.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the undercover officer's conduct did not amount to active elicitation or the functional equivalent of an interrogation.

The statements were volunteered by the appellant, and his section 7 right to silence was not violated.

The appellant appealed as of right from a decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal that allowed the Crown's appeal from his acquittal for possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking.

The sole issue was the admissibility of a telephone conversation between an unidentified person and a police officer arranging a drug delivery.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the conversation was not hearsay because it was tendered as a statement of intention or to establish the transaction, rather than for the truth of its contents.

The Court confirmed the order for a new trial.