In a pre-trial admissibility ruling in a homicide prosecution, the court addressed adoptive admissions, detention, voluntariness, delay in implementing the right to counsel, fresh start cautions, and a privacy challenge to cell-block video surveillance.
The court held that the initial 911 admissions and later scene gestures provided some evidence on which a jury could find adoptive admissions between the co-accused.
Applying the Grant detention framework, the court found no detention during the first officer’s preliminary scene questioning after the 911 call, no breach of s. 10, and no basis to exclude the ensuing statements under s. 24(2).
The court also found the subsequent police interviews were voluntary, that delay in securing counsel with a Vietnamese interpreter was reasonable in the circumstances, and that no fresh start caution was required.
The privacy challenge to brief upper-body exposure on cell surveillance footage failed, and in any event would not have justified exclusion of the later interview.
