R. v. Blanchette, 2023 BCSC 1599

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Blanchette, 2023 BCSC 1599 Date: 20230630 Docket: 183178-2 Registry: Victoria Rex v. Louie Aric Blanchette and Crystal Lee Ross Before: The Honourable Justice Chan Oral Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the Crown: E.J. Weisenburger Counsel for the Accused, Louie Blanchette: N. Acker Counsel for the Accused, Crystal Ross: N. Brooks, as agent for T. Morino Place and Date of Trial: Victoria, BC, April 11-14, 2023 Place and Date of Judgment: Victoria, B.C.

June 30, 2023 INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Louie Aric Blanchette and Crystal Lee Ross are charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 . The charge arises from the police attendance at a parking lot in the City of Victoria as a result of a complaint from a member of the public. When police officers attended at the accused’s vehicle on September 28, 2021, one of the officers made observations of a controlled substance inside a red container on the floor of the vehicle.

Both accused were arrested and a search was conducted of the vehicle, where controlled substances, cash and other drug paraphernalia were seized. [ 2 ] Both accused earlier brought applications alleging breaches of their rights pursuant to ss. 8, 9, and 10(

a) and 10(

b) of the Charter. Those applications were dismissed and the evidence of the two attending police officers, heard in the voir dire, was admitted by consent as evidence in the trial proper. The Crown called a drug expert and Ms. Ross testified for the defence. [ 3 ] The issue to be determined is whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Blanchette and Ms. Ross possessed for the purpose of trafficking the methamphetamine seized from the van. FACTUAL BACKGROUND [ 4 ] The facts were detailed in the Court’s ruling on the voir dire .

I will set out the pertinent facts again here. [ 5 ] On September 28, 2021, Cst. Alex Rutherford and Cst. Aaron Mitic of the Victoria Police Department responded to a complaint from a member of the public relating to a green Dodge Caravan at the parking lot at 243 Gorge Road, Victoria. [ 6 ] Cst. Rutherford and Cst. Mitic arrived at the location at approximately 11:30 am. They located a blue Dodge Caravan with licence plate MS9 27E. Cst. Rutherford believed that was the vehicle that was the subject of the complaint, as it was the same make and model, and was in the location the caller specified.

The licence plate was off by one letter. [ 7 ] The Dodge Caravan was backed into the parking spot. As Cst. Rutherford exited his police car, he could not see any occupants in the front of the Dodge Caravan. He saw something like a flag that was hung up like a curtain, which prevented him from seeing into the back of the Dodge Caravan. Cst. Rutherford walked down the passenger side of the vehicle, while Cst. Mitic walked down the driver’s side. The rear windows were tinted and Cst. Rutherford could not see inside the van. [ 8 ] Cst. Rutherford heard people talking from inside the van.

He believed one of the back windows may have been open, but they were not windows that can be rolled down. The windows were capable of being pushed out a small distance from the van. Cst. Mitic said he believed there was a male and a female inside, either due to the voices he heard or the shadows he may have seen from inside the van. Both officers were identifying themselves as police, and asking the occupants to open the door.

[ 9 ] Cst. Rutherford observed a female come from the rear into the front area of the van, reaching for the driver’s front door. The female said something to the effect that the rear sliding doors on the Dodge Caravan were not working. Cst. Rutherford then walked around to the driver’s side. Cst. Mitic observed the female, later identified as Ms. Ross, struggling with the driver’s front door, and he assisted by opening it from the outside. At about the same time, Cst. Mitic saw the driver’s side rear sliding door open. Cst.

Rutherford was now also at the driver’s side of the vehicle and he dealt with the male, later identified as Mr. Blanchette. [ 10 ] Cst. Rutherford observed Mr. Blanchette sitting at about the middle of the bench seat inside the vehicle. Cst. Rutherford observed a red container on the floor to the left of Mr. Blanchette’s feet. Cst. Rutherford described this as a red semi-transparent container, and he testified he saw a little white puck inside. In his experience, it looked like crack cocaine and he believed it was a controlled substance. At approximately 11:29 am Cst. Rutherford arrested Mr.

Blanchette for possession of a controlled substance. Cst. Rutherford informed his partner that Ms. Ross can also be arrested for possession of a controlled substance. [ 11 ] Cst. Rutherford asked Mr. Blanchette to exit the vehicle. Mr. Blanchette had a lighter in one hand and a phone in his other hand. Mr. Blanchette said something to the effect that he can call the owner of the van. [ 12 ] Initially Cst. Rutherford intended to release Mr. Blanchette at the scene; however, Cst. Rutherford learned that there was a warrant outstanding on another matter for Mr.

Blanchette and he needed to be taken into custody on the warrant. A transport officer was called. Cst. Rutherford searched the Dodge Caravan. He located a blender with residue, a satchel with $5,125 cash, a closed notebook with believed to be scoresheets, a scale with residue on top of the notebook, plastic bags of buff, replica firearm inside a bag, lighter, drug pipes, and various other items. The parties agree that 10.98 grams of fentanyl, 202.1 grams of caffeine and 144.8 grams of methamphetamine were seized from inside the Dodge Caravan.

These items were strewn on the floor of the van, and some were on the bench seat. The methamphetamine was found in a plastic bag on the floor of the van, under the bench seat. [ 13 ] Cst. Mitic arrested Ms. Ross. She was released at 11:45 am, shortly after the arrest. Nothing of evidentiary value was found on her. [ 14 ] At some point during the search of the Dodge Caravan, Cst. Rutherford decided to search the cell phone seized from Mr. Blanchette. Cst. Rutherford looked at the two most recent incoming text messages.

The most recent incoming text message was received at 11:23 am: Where the hell are u Louise, I am at swift. Am still waiting because I need it badly. How long...? [ 15 ] The second most recent incoming text message was received at 10:39 am: Yo broski. Need a half zip How much Please? Evidence of Drug Expert [ 16 ] Cst. Danielle Little of the Victoria Police Department was qualified as an expert in the use, price, packaging, distribution and jargon with respect to methamphetamine. She testified the value of the 144.8 grams of methamphetamine ranged from approximately $5,700 to $14,480, depending on how it is sold.

Empty dime bags, a scale and cash in small denominations are often found in the possession of traffickers. She was of the view the notations in the notebook were consistent with a scoresheet, a listing of individuals who owe money for drugs. With respect to the two text messages, in her opinion, these were text messages related to the drug trade. The wording “…still waiting because I need it badly…” is similar to what a drug user suffering withdrawal would say. The term “half zip” is a common term in the drug trade referring to a half ounce of drugs. Evidence of Ms. Ross [ 17 ] Ms.

Ross testified she was on her way to obtain drugs when she bumped into Mr. Blanchette. She had not seen him in a long time, and was excited to see him. She agreed to go with Mr. Blanchette for a ride in the van to a dog park. She testified a male that she did not know drove the van. Once the van was parked, she testified that she believed Mr. Blanchette wanted to pursue an intimate encounter with her. Mr. Blanchette put up a flag, so no one could see into the back of the van. She testified they were talking about how Mr. Blanchette was off drugs, and she was crying as she was so happy for him.

She testified she did not know there were drugs inside the van. [ 18 ] In cross-examination, Ms. Ross agreed that she was “dope sick”, suffering from withdrawal at the time. After the van was parked, the driver went inside the building while her and Mr. Blanchette stayed in the van. They were there about 10 to 15 minutes before the police arrived. HAS THE CROWN PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THE ACCUSED POSSESSED THE METHAMPHETAMINE FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRAFFICKING?

[19] In a criminal trial, the accused have the presumption of innocence. The Crown has the onus to prove the essential elements of thecharge beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the Crown has to prove both accused had possession – i.e. knowledge and control - of themethamphetamine, and that the methamphetamine was possessed for the purpose of trafficking. [20] As Ms. Ross testified for the defence, her evidence needs to be analyzed within the framework of R. v. W(D), (SCC). In R. v.

W(D), the Supreme Court of Canada at p. 758 provided a three-step instruction for trial judges: First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit. Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit. Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence whichyou do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused. [21] I will first consider the case against Ms. Ross. Applying the steps in R. v.

W(D), I do not believe the evidence of Ms. Ross. Herevidence does not have the ring of truth. I do not accept her evidence that despite suffering from symptoms of drug withdrawal, she didnot go ahead with her plan of purchasing drugs but accepted a ride with Mr. Blanchette in a van that was driven by an unknown male.Though she testified the plan was to go to a dog park, there was no evidence anyone took the dog out of the van once it was parked.Further, it defies common sense that Mr. Blanchette, who according to her testimony had gotten clean, would be in a van littered withdrugs and drug paraphernalia.

I do not accept the evidence of Ms. Ross and I am not left in a reasonable doubt by it. [22] However, on the basis of the evidence that I do accept, I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of Ms. Ross.The circumstantial evidence does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Ross had knowledge and control of themethamphetamine seized from the van. No evidence was seized from her person which connects her to the methamphetamine. Noevidence was seized from the van which connects her to the methamphetamine. I am mindful the onus is on the Crown to proveMs.

Ross had knowledge and control of the methamphetamine. [23] In my view, the Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt Ms. Ross had knowledge and control of the methamphetamine. [24] Turning to the case against Mr. Blanchette, and again applying the steps of R. v. W(D), for the same reasons as stated above, I donot believe the evidence of Ms. Ross. I am not left in reasonable doubt by the evidence of Ms. Ross. On the basis of the evidence that Ido accept, I find the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of Mr. Blanchette. [25] The evidence against Mr. Blanchette is compelling.

He was on the bench seat of the van, holding a phone when the police firstencountered him. I note the most recent incoming text message on that phone was addressed to “Louise”, which bears some similarity toMr. Blanchette’s first name. The two incoming text messages were recent and consistent with users looking to purchase drugs. I acceptthe evidence of the drug expert that a “half zip” is jargon for a half ounce in the drug trade. A red container with drugs was found next tohis foot, while the other drug paraphernalia were found close by. I note the scale and notebook were found on the bench seat.

The bag ofmethamphetamine was found under the bench seat of the van. [26] In my view, the recent text messages are highly compelling circumstantial evidence. Mr. Blanchette argues there is no evidenceof any replies to the text messages and that a person cannot control what text messages others send you. However, in the circumstances,the text messages, in conjunction with the other evidence of drugs and drug paraphernalia, is evidence that Mr. Blanchette was inpossession of the methamphetamine. The only rational inference based on the totality of the evidence is Mr.

Blanchette had knowledgeand control of the methamphetamine, and possessed it for the purpose of trafficking. I note the amount of the methamphetamine, theempty baggies, the scale, the scoresheet and the large amount of cash in small denominations in close proximity. [27] Considering the totality of the evidence, in my view, the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt Mr. Blanchette hadknowledge and control of the methamphetamine, and possessed it for the purpose of trafficking. CONCLUSION [28] The Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt Ms. Ross had knowledge and control of the methamphetamine.

I findMs. Ross not guilty. [29] The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt Mr. Blanchette had knowledge and control of the methamphetamine, andpossessed it for the purpose of trafficking. [30] I find Mr. Blanchette guilty of the charge. “Chan, J.”