CRF ASSIGNMENT 1) Case citation R. v. Singh, 2017 ONCJ 797 (CanLll) – 2017. 11. 22 . (https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2017/2017oncj797/2017oncj797.html) 2) Summary OF CASE Mr. Shawn Singh was accused of the offense of having worked a vehicle while his blood liquor level was in abundance of as far as possible, on March 19, 2016. The Crown continued summarily. The safeguard documented a Charter application in connection to areas 7, 8, 9 and 10. The Crown called four witnesses, Mr. Jeremy Morrison, a TTC streetcar administrator who had on that time the scene, and three cops, PC Sean Shapiro, PC William Norman and PC Rohan Smith. There was no proof called …show more content…
Singh to a cop were not to be driven or considered for reality of their substance, identified with any components of the offense. The issue of driving those articulations for grounds was important to Charter applications that the safeguard deserted. Basically, at that point, with the end goal of this trial, the court does not think about any announcements of Mr. Singh to a cop. The resistance contends that the Crown has not set up to the essential standard that Mr. Singh had worked his engine vehicle at the applicable time. Furthermore, with the end goal of any confirmation of his blood liquor content, the resistance contends that the Crown has not built up to the imperative standard that Mr. Singh had driven a vehicle amid a hour and a half period going before the entry of the main cop, which was a scope of the offense time frame connecting the blood liquor readings set out in the toxicology report record in proved. The Crown …show more content…
v. Agyemang, supra, R. v. Chan,  O .J. No. 3329, and R. v. Irvine,  O. J. No. 5375; aff’d  O.J. No. 914. (The court finds in light of the greater part of the incidental confirmation in this trial, both for the deductions tried to be depended upon by the Crown, and in light of the majority of the proof in this trial including those put together by the safeguard, that Mr. Singh had been the driver of the Acura auto in the time allotment in the blink of an eye before 9:55 pm. at the point when the Toronto police dispatched the principal cop to the scene. Unquestionably, the court finds past a sensible uncertainty that this Acura auto had been driven around there after 8:35 pm. and preceding 9:55 pm. At the point when this auto was watched stranded on the streetcar tracks in the
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
In R v Sheu, the leave to appeal made by applicant, Simon Sheu for the sentence imposed upon him in the District Court on 16th of September 2016 was refused at the 2nd of May 2018 hearing. The applicant was previously sentenced by Williams in the District Court for two counts of break, enter and steal (s 112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)), three counts of aggravated break, enter and steal (s 112(2)) and once for taking part in a criminal group (s 93T(1)). The sole ground of the proposed appeal made to the Court of Criminal Appeal was that the applicant seeks leave because he has
On 05/14/2017 at approximately 0605 hours, I was notified by Sgt. Kelley of a traffic crash fatality that occurred on Bruce B. Downs Boulevard at the intersection of USF Pine Drive. I responded to the scene and upon arrival at approximately 0708 hours, I conducted a sworn interview with the Adrianne Ojeda, the driver of Vehicle 1. I was also assigned to forensically map the scene.
In the case of Ganganon Vs Scarpelli, the Supreme Court held that parolees have a limited right to counsel in revocation hearings. And that the hearing body must determine whether counsel should be afforded, case by case. (Latessa & Smith, 2011). Even though it may not be granted in all cases it counsel should be provided at the parolee's request after they have been informed of their rights and based on a timely claim that he had not committed the crime. If the crime is of a public record and uncontested, and there are reasons in justification or mitigation that makes revocation inappropriate.
Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 589 F.2d 791, 794 (5th Cir. 1979) The appellant court held that it was not. According to rule 404 under the Federal Rules of Evidence, “evidence of a person 's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait”. Fed. R. Evid. 404 Under this rule the evidence of Reyes prior convictions admitted by the trial court, “purpose of showing that he was intoxicated on the night that he was run over by defendant-appellee 's train” proves to be inadmissible under Rule 404(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 589 F.2d 791, 792 (5th Cir. 1979) The courts due mention the exceptions on the admission of character evidence. However the court did not use the evidence of Reyes past drunkenness to prove some other criminal purpose. Since the trial court failed to do the latter, and instead entered evidence on the basis of character to prove that the plaintiff acted in accordance with his character trait during the night in question, it went against the modern rules set out in FRE 404 and is therefore
Reasonable people will generally go a long distance to protect their loved-ones. In the case of R v. Buzizi , a man killed another so that he could protect his cousin. On an early morning in Montreal, the accused’s cousin and the victim ensued in a brawl. The initial fight was broken up by a third party, but a few moments later, the accused pushed the victim. Then, Mr. Buzizi noticed that the victim was brandishing an exacto knife, and that his cousin had a wound on his neck. For fear that the victim was going to pull out the knife again and attack his cousin or himself, the accused eventually stabbed the victim several times with his own knife. Buzizi was tried and convicted of second degree murder, but this decision was appealed
McAlister case valid rules of evidence and testimony were used to prove Jose McAlister is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, circumstantial evidence demonstrated a factual matter by proving other events from which the occurrence of the matter can be reasonably inferred. The evidence of the map found in McAlister’s car proved there was a relationship between McAlister and the murder of the victim Venzie Viktum. Furthermore, the evidence received by law enforcement was relevant, reliable, and competent. The evidence was gathered by a probable cause and was not prejudicial, misleading, inaccurate or distracting. The court case had many valid testimony’s that prove Jose is guilty of the charges against him. The prosecutions’ witness Willy will testify at the preliminary hearing and admitted he was in a drug distribution conspiracy with Jose. Additionaly the prosecutions discovery would be available and applicable to be called by the intern at the government laboratory that conducted the certificate of analysis analyzing the evidence found and the body. The prosecution has plans to call Jose’s former attorney that knows everything about Jose’s illegal activities. Futheremore the prosecution will also call Nancy Nozzy who is the neighborhood watch caption that information. The expert testimony from the government laboratory has specialized knowledge that will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence that Jose was guilty. The testimonies from
In this case entitled Gulash v. Stylarama there was a contract entered regarding the construction of pools. The pool was built and constructed but after a period of time the pool began to tilt, in which that’s when Gulash decided to sue Stylarama. The suit was that Stylarama violated provisions of article 2 of the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). Due to the fact the cost of the materials and the labor were not written out in detail but instead of in a lump sum it would make it hard to come up with a sum for the exact cost of the damages. Furthermore, since this is a contract with a mix of goods and services, article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code would not apply the services only to the goods but the common law would to the services. And
COMES NOW the defendant, Douglas Davis, through counsel, and moves to suppress evidence of possession of a controlled substance that resulted from a search in violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to privacy from unreasonable search and seizures.
At the hearing of the appeal there was a conflict of evidence as to whether the car was being driven by the appellant or by a lady seated by his side in the car. The quarter sessions, without deciding whether the appellant was himself driving the car, dismissed the appeal, finding as facts that if the lady was driving she was doing so with the consent and approval of the appellant, who must have known that the speed was dangerous, and who, being in control of the car, could, and ought to, have prevented
Based on Ocampo's objective symptoms of intoxication present and performance of the Standard Field Sobriety Tests, I formed the opinion he was under the influence of alcoholic beverages and was unable to safely operate a motor vehicle. I arrested Ocampo for CVC 23152(a)-Driving under the influence. I advised Ocampo of his obligation to submit to a chemical test. Ocampo understood his choices and agreed to take the breath
The following is a case study analysis of Case 10.1 Belanger v. Swift Transportation. This particular case involves one former employee, Nathaniel Belanger and Swift Transportation Incorporated, a trucking company. This particular case revolves around Nathaniel Belanger braking one of the Swift Transportation “Forbidden Five” safety policies. The “Forbidden Five” are five infractions that can lead to immediate termination of its drivers (Melvin and Katz, 2015, pp. 265). One of these infractions involves rear-ending another vehicle.
The mother indicated that she continued to stay in the relationship. She reported in 1993, Mr. Solestin hit her, they were having an argument and she told him she wanted to move out. The mother reported after she stated that she wanted out of the relationship, he became violent. Ms. Choi stated that he picked her up and threw her on the “bed or floor”, she was very frightened. The mother reported that she would hide in the bathroom and he would smash the door to get at her. She indicated that he can’t be in a situation where she is not obedient to him.
Baig’s defence was that the two parking attendants were not in a state of fear or alarm and as such a breach of section 38(1) had not been committed. This argument was rightly rejected by the court. It is not a requirement of section 38(1) that Baig’s behaviour causes fear or alarm, it is sufficient if a reasonable person would be likely to suffer fear or
The name of the parties are (appellant) commissioner of the police of the metropolis,(respondent) Mr. Michael Rottman . The judgment has been held in the house of lords. The judges on this were- Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Roger of Earlsferry. The barristers and solicitors in this case were, Mr. Perry, on behalf of the appellant and Miss Montgomery, for the respondent. The date of the judgment was 16th may 2002.
In. Rustam Satin v. Dr. Sampoornand, one of the contentions concerning an appeal was that it was based on caste consideration and hence a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Act. The appeal was made by a Prominent Yadav to his Yadav brethren in the following form: