R. v. Shevalev, 2018 BCSC 1610

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Shevalev, 2018 BCSC 1610 Date: 20180601 Docket: 26839 Registry: Vancouver Regina v. Alexander Konstanovich Shevalev Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Wedge Oral Ruling re Admissibility of Internet Searches re Poisoning Counsel for the Crown: E. Poll P.M. Fullerton Counsel for the Accused: G. Orris, Q.C. Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. June 1, 2018 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. June 1, 2018 [ 1 ] THE COURT: Mr. Shevalev is charged with second degree murder.

There is no allegation of planning and deliberation as those terms are understood within the context of the Code provisions concerning first degree murder. [ 2 ] There are some 32 or 33 internet searches about poisoning, all conducted by Mr. Shevalev on January 20, 2015 within about an hour – between 2:17 a.m. to 3:20 a.m. To be clear, the searches are about how to poison someone. [ 3 ] It is alleged, and there is some evidence before the jury in support, that the deceased died from pressure or force applied to his neck. However, there is no allegation that Mr.

Shevalev attempted to poison his father, or thought about poisoning his father. Mr. Shevalev did raise the possibility that his father was poisoned, pointing the finger, it seems, at his half-brother, Slava. Mr. Shevalev. raised that subject three or four times in his warned police statement to Sgt. Terpsma. It is for that reason, argues the Crown, that the web searches conducted by Mr. Shevalev about poisoning are relevant. The Crown also says it is relevant to Mr. Shevalev's credibility, should he testify, and that it is somehow suggestive of Mr.

Shevalev thinking about possible ways to cause the death of his father. [ 4 ] But what more, really, is there to these entries than innuendo? As I say, there is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Shevalev tried to poison Vladimir and as I understand it, the Crown is not alleging that it has anything to do with Vladimir's death. The toxicology report, as I recall it, does not link the one suspicious drug found in his system to his death. [ 5 ] What this evidence of searches regarding poison will do, in my view, is suggest to the jury that Mr. Shevalev is a bad person.

The evidence goes primarily to his character and perhaps even to discreditable conduct, both types of evidence which are prima facie inadmissible unless it goes to a fact in issue, and its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect. [ 6 ] In my view the prejudicial effect of this evidence cannot be overstated. It is highly prejudicial and it may well result in propensity reasoning by the jury. I can understand the Crown's desire to lead this evidence, but in my view it is simply too prejudicial.

It is not truly probative of any fact in issue with respect to this offence, in my respectful view, and my ruling is that those web searches cannot go before the jury. The Honourable Madam Justice C.A. Wedge