R. v. Eddy Date:, 2013 BCPC 294

Citation: R. v. Eddy Date: 20130927 2013 BCPC 0294 File No: 202734-1 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. DARREN JAMES EDDY EXCERPTS FROM PROCEEDINGS REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE P. MEYERS Counsel for the Crown: D. Hartney Counsel for the Defendant: V. Descroches Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: September 27, 2013 Date of Judgment: September 27, 2013

[ 1 ] THE COURT: Mr. Eddy is charged under Information 202734 with two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking, both alleged to have occurred on July 6th, 2011. The drugs involved in Count 1 are cocaine, rocks and powder, and the drug involved in Count 2 is heroin. [ 2 ] Briefly, the facts are that the police, when doing a routine patrol of the Brandiz Hotel, went into the washroom and saw the accused with white powder on his hand, the powder being between his forefinger and thumb. The police officer thought that he seemed to have just snorted some cocaine. When Mr.

Eddy saw the police officer, he shook his hand and the white powder fell to the ground. [ 3 ] Mr. Eddy was then arrested by the police officers and upon searching him, they found the following: in his left front pants pocket, a small change purse with three rocks of crack cocaine, three flaps of heroin, and six flaps of powder cocaine as well as 10 flaps of cocaine. In his right-hand pocket, inside another change purse, they found one flap of cocaine and five flaps of heroin. [ 4 ] The drugs were in 28 separate packages and had a grand total weight of 8.46 grams. No cellphones were found on Mr.

Eddy, nor was any money found on Mr. Eddy. [ 5 ] At the trial, the Crown called Detective Constable Griffiths as an expert in the use, packaging, and sale of heroin and cocaine in the Downtown Eastside , in the summer of 2011. In Detective Constable Griffiths' opinion, the facts as outlined above were, "More consistent with possession for the purpose of trafficking than for personal use." He agreed in cross-examination that there was a possibility that a heavy user could use up those drugs in two to three days.

However, he did not rate that as a very strong possibility. [ 6 ] The basis for Detective Constable Griffiths' opinion was the following: 1. The accused had two change purses rather than one with him, each one having separate types of drugs in each purse. Usually an addict, he said, will have his drugs loose in his pocket and all mixed up if they are for his own use and there is more than one type of drug, whereas if it is for sale, they usually separate them in different pockets so as to be able to get to them quickly, depending upon what drug the customer wanted. 2.

A dealer will keep the different types of drug separate from the other type of drugs. For example if there are two purses, there would be two different types of drugs if was an individual user. If it were a seller, they would also have their drugs in two separate spots, but he said that, normally, a user would not be carrying little purses and in particular would not carry two purses to contain all his drugs. At best, a user might have two different packages of two different types of drugs in two different pockets, but rarely had he seen them separated in change purses of any kind. 3.

Most addicts and users will carry one drug and not two on their person and that drug will usually be their drug of choice. He said traffickers on the other hand, usually carry a variety of drugs from which purchasers can choose one or another. 4. An addict or user will carry the drug of choice in "the form" they like to use the drug. Traffickers will usually carry the drug in a variety of different forms for sale according to the various preferences of their customers. In this case, with respect to the cocaine, the accused had both rock cocaine and powdered cocaine. 5.

The packages of each of the drugs were in the quantity that is usually sold on the street level in the Downtown Eastside: $80 for each gram of rock cocaine; $20 a flap for each heroin point; powdered cocaine, each flap, $20 per flap; 10 flaps of heroin at $20 per flap. Each of the flaps or packages were approximately the same weight as one another. The expert testified that the total value of the rock cocaine individually sold as it was packaged would be $240.

The total value of the cocaine powder if individually sold as it was packaged would be $140 and the total value of the heroin if sold individually as packaged would be $360, making for a grand total combination of those figures. 6. Users and addicts usually will buy small quantities of drugs, he said, in order to get them through the next fix or two and normally do not carry or stockpile larger quantities to take them through the next week or next three, four, five days ahead. 7.

A user or addict will usually carry with him just enough cocaine for the next number of dosages and do not carry stockpiles with him -- I guess that is the same as number 6. 8. The next point, eight, drug users buy in small quantities because that is usually what they have sufficient money with them to buy, as opposed to buying larger quantities but should they have cash on occasion to buy larger quantities, usually an addict or user will buy them in bulk as opposed to buying them in small packages because it is substantially cheaper to buy them in bulk than in smaller packages.

In the case of a user who wants to buy a variety of drugs, this would be a very uneconomical way, to say the least, he said, for them to buy each of the drugs in small quantities rather than buying each of the type of drug he wants to use, in larger quantities. He said this is certainly according to the market in the east downtown side of Vancouver, as elsewhere as well. 9. The accused did not have any paraphernalia for drug use on his person. The officer testified that typically an addict will carry a pipe or a tube or roll paper or needles in order to be able to use the drugs of their choice.

In this case there was no paraphernalia or anything that an addict or user could use for ingestion of some of the drugs. That is to say, the rock cocaine and the heroin, unless he was going to snort the heroin and snort the powdered cocaine, but he certainly would not be able, without smashing it up in some way or putting it in a pipe or a tube, to use the rock cocaine. 10. The trafficker usually does not carry any drug paraphernalia on his person as opposed to a user who does.

The Detective Constable did agree that using powdered cocaine does not require any paraphernalia and also you could snort heroin as opposed to injecting it. You could snort powdered cocaine, just as you could snort heroin, but rock cocaine however, he could not snort. It normally would have to be chipped off a rock and smoked or it could be smashed up, he said, and then snorted but that is not too usual. He said, in any event, the accused did not have anything on his person that would be used to either smash up or smoke the rock cocaine that he had on him. 11.

The fact that no cellphone was found on his person was inconsequential, said the Expert, because the average street trafficker in

Downtown Eastside is not engaged in dial-a-dope, but rather in hand-to-hand, very quick and spontaneous sales when a prospective purchaser approaches the drug dealer. So, usually there is no preplanned arrangements by telephone or any other way for the meeting. Therefore, not having a cellphone on him is not something that mitigates against him being a trafficker. 12. The absence of finding score sheets on the accused was of no consequence the officer said, given that in the Downtown Eastside neither addicts nor sellers keep score sheets. 13.

The fact that there was no cash found on the accused is important according to the Expert. His opinion, however, was that it could be for a number of reasons: i. that he was not selling or had not yet made a sale; ii. that he would be working with somebody else who was doing the monetary transactions while he was carrying the drugs, a common method of selling drugs in Downtown Eastside; or iii. working with a boss who would be on the street overseeing the sales, collecting the money right after the person made a drug sale and then resupplying the seller with some more new drugs.

The Expert commented that these are all very common ways for street sales to take place, so he was not able to say that not finding any money on Mr. Eddy, was necessarily indicative that he was not selling drugs. 14. The amount of rock cocaine that was in the possession of Mr. Eddy would last one to two days for a heavy user, the amount of cocaine powder would last one to two days for a heavy user, and the amount of heroin would last one week for a heavy user. Again, to reiterate, he said that users do normally carry their supplies on their person for the next hit or two, but rarely for a week's duration. 15.

Next point he made is that the Brandiz Hotel is a hot spot for drug usage and selling in the Downtown Eastside. [ 7 ] I am finished with his Expert evidence now. [ 8 ] Now, the Accused testified. Mr. Eddy told the Court that he was a drug user and had no drug of preference, but he would choose whatever drug he could lay his hands on. He said that he had been on a two-day binge, taking every type of drug he was able to buy. He said he met a friend of his who was also known to him as a drug dealer.

He said that he met him at the Brandiz about an hour before the police came. [ 9 ] He said he purchased the entire stock that he was carrying. He said he was given all the drugs. He paid for only half of them. He paid half the going price. He said he paid $350. He said the trafficker knew him and knew that he would be good for the other half of the money and that is why he was prepared to "front him" the drugs for his own use and know that he would get paid later on by Mr. Eddy.

They had dealt with each other many times, he said and the fellow trusted him to come up with the money later on. [ 10 ] He said that he bought the drugs approximately an hour before the police came into the bathroom. The police came into the bathroom of the Brandiz Hotel about 6:20 p.m. [ 11 ] The Accused went on to say that he was frequently contracted by Brandiz Hotel Owners to book bands into the bar on both weekends and weekends [sic]. He said that doing this, he sometimes made as much as $1,500 to $2,500 a week if he booked three shows.

Other times, he said, he would only make $500 if he booked just show. [ 12 ] He said that he would get all of the cover fees paid by patrons. The cover fee was $2 per person and the bar had a 300-person capacity, so potentially he would get $600. He said the bar was usually full. In addition, he said that he would get a percentage of whatever alcohol was sold that night. He said the Hotel Owner would pay him in cash at the end of the night and he would pay the band at the end of the night with part of his take. [ 13 ] He said the lesser known bands play on the weekdays and they would get between $500 and $600.

He recalled this was a weekday, but he does not recall the name of the band that he had booked for that night. [ 14 ] He testified that his job was to book the band in advance and then to be there at night when the band arrived, meet the soundman, make sure the band performed and then stay during the night in order to collect his own money and to pay the band members at the end of the evening. [ 15 ] Mr. Eddy testified that prior to the summer of 2011, he had been stabbed 11 times in February of 2011 by his seriously mentally ill brother and he almost died in the hospital from stab wounds.

That was relevant because he said that he had been in great pain and had been self-medicating with any kind of drugs that he could get his hands on since that time. [ 16 ] He also said that he was a binge user and had been binging, as mentioned, for two solid days prior to the date of this incident. He said that at his home, he had both money and drugs waiting for him. His home was only 10 or 15 minutes from the Brandiz but he felt no need to go and get the drugs there because he was able to score the drugs from his friend or acquaintance who was selling at the Brandiz. [ 17 ] Mr.

Eddy said that he had been using drugs since he was 14 years old. He is now 44. He had a conviction in 1989 for possession for the purpose of trafficking; 1990 for possession; 1994, for possession; and in 2004, for trafficking cocaine for which he was given a conditional discharge due to a 10-year gap between the last offence and 2004.

I do not give any weight at all to the fact that he has past convictions. [ 18 ] He testified that part of his binging in the two days before, was related to his constantly having to reconcile and resolve issues with his brother and the psychological stresses of having to understand why his own brother would have stabbed him. Notwithstanding

that intellectually, he did understand that the brother had lots of mental health issues, he said he was having a lot of physical and psychological pain in dealing with this. [ 19 ] He went on to explain that he had no cash on him because he had spent all his cash that day to buy drugs. He explained that the heroin he had on him would be alleviating physical pain and the cocaine for alleviating the mental pain. [ 20 ] He said that in good times he could make $10,000 a month and that he had been working for the Brandiz booking bands intermittently, for approximately one-and-a-half years.

He said that he had been using drugs for the past two days plus he was drinking heavily as well. He claimed that he was able to effectively work, notwithstanding his two-day binge and he said he planned to stay and coordinate things for the band's appearance that evening and pay them at the end of the evening. [ 21 ] I do not believe the evidence of Mr. Eddy. I do not believe the Accused when he says that he has no drug of choice preference at all.

I accept the evidence of the police expert to the effect that most addicts or almost all addicts will have a drug of choice and given the availability of that drug of choice in the Downtown Eastside, I do not find it credible that Mr. Eddy would have bought the whole mixture of drugs as opposed to buying maybe one or two of drugs which were his preference. [ 22 ] I also found his explanation of segregating each drug for his own personal use was not credible. Remember he had said that he used heroin for the physical pain and cocaine for the mental pain.

It was just too neat a separation of the types of drugs in his pocket according to his specific needs. The basis of his evidence is just not believable. [ 23 ] When he says that he can binge on all sorts of drugs for two days, combine that with alcohol and continue binging on the night of the show and still be in the state of mind to do his job, defies common experience and common sense. [ 24 ] It does not make any sense for him to have bought out lock, stock, and barrel, including containers, purses, all the drugs that were being carried by the drug trafficker.

Also, it does not make sense that he would buy enough drugs, that for even a heavy user, would take him the next six or seven days to use up. [ 25 ] He told us he had more drugs and money at home. It does not make a lot of sense for him to buy that extensive a quantity of drugs of all types of drugs, when he had more drugs waiting for him at home at night's end.

Why would he buy a week's supply if he already had drugs at home to take and use for the day after, the day after, and the day after that? [ 26 ] I do not believe him when he told the Court that the Brandiz would be paying him the cover charge of $600 plus as much as five to eight percent of the alcohol each evening. It defies common sense that a bar in the Downtown Eastside and a longstanding busy place as the Brandiz, would be paying that amount of money for someone to book a no-name band into their premises. [ 27 ] Yes, I find that Mr.

Eddy is a user and a drug binger, but that does not preclude him from also being a seller of the drugs. All of the expert evidence that was called make it far more consistent in my view, with him having the drugs for the purpose of sale as opposed to having the drugs for his own personal use. The only parts of his evidence that I do accept are that he was a user, he used a variety of drugs and he was a binger. He had been using since the age of 14.

However, that does not mean he is also not a trafficker. [ 28 ] I accept the expert evidence as to the indicia that he gave as being far more consistent with drug trafficking than drug using. Although the Expert did grant the possibility that the drugs could be for his own use, he said that was a very slight possibility. The Courts have said before, that slight possibilities do not raise reasonable doubts. [ 29 ] The Defence submissions that the police had not known Mr.

Eddy from any transactions in the past in Downtown Eastside, nor had they ever seen him engaged in hand-to-hand transactions with any individual that night or, in fact, ever, is not evidence that he was not engaged in efforts to traffic in those drugs on July 6th, 2011. Conclusion [ 30 ] Accordingly, I find Mr. Eddy guilty of possession of heroin for purpose of trafficking and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking on July 6th, 2011, in Vancouver. [REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CONCLUDED]