Supreme Court of Canada
R. v. Risby, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 139
Date: 1978-02-28
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant;
and
John Leo Howard Risby Respondent.
1978: February 28.
Present: Laskin C.J. and Martland, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
Criminal law—Evidence—Charge of possession of narcotic (marihuana) for purpose of trafficking—Package discovered by police officer—Accused answering “I don’t know” in reply to officer’s question “What is this?”—Court of Appeal ruling that accused’s statement wrongfully excluded by County Court judge—Conviction set aside and new trial ordered—Crowns appeal to Supreme Court of Canada dismissed—Answer of accused admissible as part of the res gestae.
APPEAL, with leave, from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, whereby that Court allowed the respondent’s appeal, set aside his conviction on a charge of possession of a narcotic, Cannabis (marihuana), for the purpose of trafficking contrary to the Narcotic Control Act, and directed a new trial. Appeal dismissed.
W.B. Scarth and A.S. Fradkin, for the appellant.
P. Hart, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
THE CHIEF JUSTICE—We do not need to hear you, Mr. Hart. We are all of the opinion that the answer of the accused was admissible in this case as part of the res gestae and that what was said by Ritchie J. in The Queen v. Graham, at p. 214, as to res gestae is not limited to cases of possession of recently stolen goods. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
[Page 140]
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant: R. Tassé, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa.
Solicitor for the respondent: P. Hart, Vancouver.
Email this Content