The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence relating to a Charter voir dire, erred in the analysis of the right to counsel of choice under s. 10(b), and improperly accepted expert toxicology evidence.
The Superior Court held that the trial judge’s minor misquotation of the appellant’s testimony did not amount to a material misapprehension of evidence and did not taint the credibility findings.
The court further found no error in the conclusion that police were not required to clarify whether the accused wished to contact private counsel when he merely requested a lawyer and was connected with duty counsel.
The expert evidence on projected blood alcohol concentration was properly admitted and relied upon, and the trial judge reasonably rejected hypothetical bolus drinking scenarios.
The conviction was upheld.
