R. v. Larocque Drug Trafficking Case

Indictment 1. DIJON LAROCQUE stands charged that s/he, on or about the 1st day of October in the year 2004, at the City of Yourtown in the Region of Yourtown, did traffic in a controlled substance, to wit: Coca (Erythroxylon), its preparations, derivatives, alkaloids and salts,to wit: cocaine, contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act; 2. DIJON LAROCQUE stands further charged that s/he, on or about the 2nd day of October in the year 2004, at the City of Yourtown in the Region of Yourtown, did have in his/her possession a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking, to wit: Coca (Erythroxylon), its preparations, derivatives, alkaloids and salts, to wit: cocaine, contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act;

Relevant Law “Traffic” includes the selling, administering, giving, transferring , transporting, sending or delivering of a substance

Relevant Law Cont… S. 4(3) provides: a) a person has anything in possession when he has it in his personal possession or knowingly: i) has it in the actual possession of custody of another person, or ii) has it in any place, whether that place belongs to or is occupied by him, for the use or benefit of himself or of another person; and b) where one of two or more persons, with the knowledge and consent of the rest, has anything in his custody or possession, it shall be deemed to be in the custody and possession of each and all of them.

S. 21 provides that a person may be a party to an offence. S. 21 (1) Every one is a party to an offence who a) actually commits it; b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or c) abets any person in committing it. S. 21 (2) Where two or more persons form an intention in common to carry out an unlawful purpose and to assist each other therein and any one of them, in carrying out the common purpose, commits an offence, each of them who knew that the commission of the offence would be a probable consequence of carrying out the common purpose is a party to that offence.

Legal Principles In order to prove Larocque guilty of the offence of trafficking, the Crown must show that s/he and Friedbrain acted together in order to sell a drug to an undercover officer. In order to prove Larocque guilty of the offence of possession for the purpose of trafficking, the Crown must show that s/he knew of the drugs in the pool table and intended them to be sold, or was wilfully blind to the presence of the drugs and Fredi’sactions. Wilful blindness is a state of mind which arises where a person has become aware of the need for some inquiry but declines to make an inquiry because s/he would prefer not to know the truth or to remain ignorant.

Questioning Direct Examination (Examination in chief): DO NOT lead your witness; Allow him/her to “tell the story”. - Decide which weaknesses are ones you should acknowledge and control in the DIRECT

“Just a reminder your Honour, my name is Marson, first intial S “Just a reminder your Honour, my name is Marson, first intial S. May I begin with the chief examination of the Crowns first witness?” Q: IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE COURT PLEASE? A: I AM POLICE OFFICER RONNIE LODGE, DETECTIVE #487 Q: CAN YOU PLEASE GIVE US A SUMMARY OF YOUR QUALIFICATIONS? A: I HAVE BEEN A POLICE OFFICER FOR 15 YEARS. I AM QUALIFIED AS A FINGERPRINT EXPERT. BEFORE THIS I INVESTIGATED LOST KITTENS AND DOGS   Q: WERE YOU ON DUTY ON MARCH 12, 1999? A: YES I WAS.

Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT? A: AT APPROXIMATELY 7 O’CLOCK I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM ANOTHER UNIFORMED OFFICER. THE CALL WAS ABOUT A POSSIBLE THEFT AT RIVERDALE HIGH SCHOOL. BECAUSE I ATTENDED THAT SCHOOL, I RESPONDED TO THE CALL Q: WHAT HAPPENED WHEN YOU GOT TO THE SCHOOL? A: I MET WITH PRINCIPAL WEATHERBEE AND WAS TOLD THAT SOME COMPUTER ITEMS WERE MISSING Q: WHAT WERE THESE ITEMS? A: A PENTIUM II 300 COMPUTER, A DISK STORAGE CASE AND FIVE DISKS THAT CONTAINED IMPORTANT AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

End with… “Those are all the questions I have for this witness, your Honour. Mr/s. Witness, if you could please remain on the stand as my friends will have some questions to ask you”

Questioning Cross-Examination: Plan 2-3 major weaknesses you can attack in 5 minutes. Set up a series of questions that will end with the key “kill” LEAD!!! Do not ask open-ended questions that will allow the witness to manipulate the response to solidify its case. Set up questions before the trial but be prepared to alter them after the Direct. The best type of questions will result in yes or no answers without explanation

Q: YOU ARE DETECTIVE RONNIE LODGE, CORRECT? A: YES   Q: YOU HAVE FIFTEEN YEARS OF EXPERIENCE CORRECT? Q: YOU HAVE RECENTLY BECOME QUALIFIED AS A FINGERPRINT EXPERT, CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND BEFORE THEN YOU PRIMARILY INVESTIGATED LOST KITTENS AND DOGS, CORRECT? Q: CONSIDERING YOUR QUALIFICATIONS, THAT DOESN’T MAKE YOU THE MOST EXPERIENCED IN DEALING WITH THEFT NOW DOES IT? A: NO

Q: LET’S GET ON TO THE NIGHT OF MARCH 12, 1999, YOU WERE ON DUTY THAT NIGHT, CORRECT? A: YES   Q: YOU RECEIVED INFORMATION ABOUT A POSSIBLE THEFT AT RIVERDALE HIGH SCHOOL, CORRECT? A: YES Q: ONE OF THE REASONS YOU RESPONDED WAS BECAUSE IT WAS THE SCHOOL YOU ATTENDED, CORRECT? Q: AND YOU WOULD HAVE ALREADY KNOWN PRINCIPAL WEATHERBEE?

Objections: 1. Leading question in direct 2. Argumentative question if lawyer asks a question that leads his/her witness to an answer much like a cross examination question 2. Argumentative question question makes an argument rather than asking a question   3. Asked and Answered when the lawyer repeats a question that they have already received a response 4. Assumes facts not in evidence when the question assumes something is true, when no evidence has been shown to establish said truth 5. Badgering Counsel antagonizes the witness to receive an answer

6. Beyond the Scope 7. Calls for speculation 8. Compound Question when a question in cross that was not in the scope of the direct of that witness “heard you testify”, but was never testified too 7. Calls for speculation asks the witness to guess the answer, rather than relying on fact   8. Compound Question multiple questions asked at once 9. Incompetent witness is not qualified to answer

10. Irrelevant Question does not pertain to the issues at trial   11. Hearsay Your honour, the witness is not testifying in accordance of his/her own sworn witness testimony.

Evidence/Exhibits If you plan to enter exhibits you should check to be sure they are entered properly. Exhibits must be entered according the following procedure: • A witness must identify the item. • The witness must tell the court what his/her connection with the item is. • Then the witness must tell what connection the item has with the crime (that is, is it a map or the area of where the crime took place,goods that were stolen, a weapon found near a body, etc?) • Once the witness has shown the item’s connection to the case and to him, the lawyer asks that the item be entered as an exhibit.

“Your honor, may I approach the witness “Your honor, may I approach the witness?” “Constable Smith, do you recognize this?” “ Yes, it was the baseball bat found at the crime scene” “Where was it found?” “On the left-hand sides of the victims body, placed in their hands” “Was there any one else, other than yourself, to handle the bat when it was found?” “No there was not” “Your Honour, if there are no objections, I would like to move for the admission of Exhibit A as evidence”

• The judge asks if there are any objections. • If there are no objections, the item is given to the clerk. • The clerk puts a label on the item. The date and ‘Exhibit 1’ (1, 2, 3 etc.) are put on the label. • The clerk then shows the item to the judge. • The clerk keeps the item on the table. NOTE: to establish the chain of control of the item, all the witnesses who have handled the exhibit must testify.

All evidence must be disclosed before the trial or it will not be able to be used What exhibits do you think will be submitted in this case?

The Crown must also have their witnesses identify the accused in court, during their direct questioning: “Do you recognize the man who hit you today?” “Yes, he is here” “Can you please point to him?” [Points] “He is sitting there in the blue shirt” “Your Honour, let the record show that the witness Mrs. Smith pointed to Mr. Smith as the man who hit her”