2022 QCCA 1138, 2022 QCCA 1138

Little c. R. 2022 QCCA 1138 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-10-006459-174 (500-01-096750-135) DATE: August 22, 2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE GENEVIÈVE COTNAM, J.A. STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A. CHRISTINE BAUDOUIN, J.A. ALTAMOND JR. LITTLE APPELLANT – Accused v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT – Prosecutrix JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Appellant stood trial before a judge and jury on the following charges: (

a) On or about October 8, 2013, in Lasalle, District of Montreal, Altamond Jr. Little did cause the death of Maxime Calado Berthiaume, committing thereby a second degree murder, the indictable offence provided by

section 235 of the Criminal Code ; (

b) On or about October 8, 2013, in Lasalle, District of Montreal, Altamond Jr. Little did cause the death of Marjorie Dammier, committing thereby a second degree murder, the indictable offence provided by

section 235 of the Criminal Code ; [ 2 ] The trial was held between March 14 and May 16, 2017. The jury found the Appellant guilty of second degree murder on the first count and manslaughter on the second count. [ 3 ] On June 14, 2017, he filed an appeal of the conviction on questions of law alone, based on the following grounds: 6.1 The judge erred in law in admitting hearsay evidence that is highly prejudicial but of low probative value (motion to allow hearsay evidence); 6.2 The Appellant was convicted of one count of murder.

The verdict is unreasonable since the intent was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt; 6.3 The Appellant reserved his right to add any other ground of appeal not mentioned in his notice of appeal. [ 4 ] In his brief, the Appellant chose to abandon these grounds of appeal and to raise a completely new issue, namely that his right to the assistance of an interpreter was breached. [1] He is now suggesting that a new trial should be ordered on this basis. [ 5 ] For the following reasons, the appeal will be dismissed. THE CONTEXT [ 6 ] This is a classic case of a love triangle that ended in a tragic fashion.

The Appellant and one of the victims, Marjorie Dammier, had been in a relationship for 14 years. They had two children who were in the custody of the Director of Youth Protection at the time the events occurred. The relationship was tense, even abusive, and was punctuated by multiple breakups and reconciliations. [ 7 ] In the spring of 2013, Ms. Dammier decided to put an end to the relationship. The Appellant moved out of their apartment, but they nevertheless remained in close contact. The evidence shows that they texted each other daily and met frequently.

They visited their children and even spent a few days of vacation together. While it appears that the Appellant had hopes of rekindling the relationship, Ms. Dammier’s intentions were less clear as she had a new boyfriend, the other victim, Maxime Berthiaume-Calado. [ 8 ] Although he kept his apartment, the Appellant stated that he moved back in with Ms. Dammier at the end of the summer. [ 9 ] On October 8, 2013, the Appellant was seen entering Ms. Dammier’s building. A few hours later, the neighbours heard some noise and called the police. Ms.

Dammier was found dead inside her appartement, the cause of death being a single gunshot to the head.

Mr. Calado was found on the living room floor. He was critically injured, having suffered multiple stab wounds. He died less than an hour later. [ 10 ] The Appellant was seen on video leaving the building through the back door. He was arrested a few days later. [ 11 ] The Appellant testified at his trial. He explained that he got into an argument with Mr. Calado who showed up at the apartment holding a shotgun which accidently discharged and killed Ms. Dammier. He said he stabbed Mr. Calado in self-defence. [ 12 ] The trial was held both in English and in French. Most of the expert witnesses testified in French.

An interpreter was present at all times and translated each question and answer for the benefit of all present. It appears from the transcript that the judge and the attorneys were all bilingual. [ 13 ] In his brief, the Appellant argues that the

interpretation was not accurate and that a new trial should therefore be ordered. He then proceeds to list, witness by witness, 155 “translation errors” to demonstrate that his right to an interpreter was infringed. These errors are all listed in

Schedule 1 to the present judgment. THE APPICABLE LAW [ 14 ] Under s. 14 of the Charter , [2] an accused who does not understand or speak the language of the proceedings has the right to obtain the assistance of an interpreter. This ensures that the person charged with a criminal offence understands the case against him or her and can respond accordingly. This right is also guaranteed under the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms . [3] [ 15 ] It is well established that the

interpretation does not have to be perfect, but it must be continuous, precise, impartial, competent and contemporaneous. [4] The Supreme Court provided the framework that must be followed when an accused claims that his rights under s. 14 of the Charter have been breached. This framework may be summarized as follows: 1- It must be clear that the accused needed interpreter assistance as he or she did not understand or speak the language used in court. 2- The accused must show, unless it is a case of complete denial of an interpreter, that the alleged deficiency in the

interpretation did not respect the constitutional standard of

interpretation mentioned previously: it must be continuous, precise, impartial, competent and contemporaneous. 3- The accused must establish that the lapse occurred during the course of the proceedings when the “vital interest of the accused was involved”. [5] [ 16 ] In this case, an interpreter was provided. The only concerns raised by the Appellant pertain to the precision of the translation.

He argues that, at times, the terms used were not accurate, questions or answers were not correctly or completely interpreted, mistakes were made regarding the translation of addresses or specific times, and the interpreter added information to questions or answers or omitted certain elements. In a few cases, he considers that the interpreter translated the opposite of what was said. [ 17 ] Regarding the precision of

interpretation, the Supreme Court explained as follows: The need for precision in

interpretation is self-evident. As Steele suggests at pp. 240-41 of his article, supra : the

interpretation must be, as close as can be, word-for-word and idea-for-idea; the interpreter must not "clean up" the evidence by giving it a form, a grammar or syntax that it does not have; the interpreter should make no commentary on the evidence; and the

interpretation should be given only in the first person, e.g. , "I went to school" instead of "he says he went to school". This necessity for precision is an additional reason why summaries are most unlikely to meet the general standard of

interpretation required under s. 14 of the Charter . Indeed, in the American case Negron , supra , Kaufman J. held, at pp. 389-90, that the summaries provided to the defendant by the prosecutor's interpreter were inadequate because: However astute [the interpreter's] summaries may have been, they could not do service as a means by which Negron could understand the precise nature of the testimony against him during that period of the trial's progress when the state chose to bring it forth. However, it is important to keep in mind that

interpretation is an inherently human endeavour which often takes place in less than ideal circumstances. Therefore, it would not be realistic or sensible to require even a constitutionally guaranteed standard of

interpretation to be one of perfection. As Steele explains, at p. 242: Even the best

interpretation is not "perfect", in that the interpreter can never convey the evidence with a sense and nuance identical to the original speech. For that reason, the courts have cautioned that interpreted evidence should not be examined microscopically for inconsistencies. The benefit of a doubt should be given to the witness. In this respect, it may be helpful to note the conceptual distinction that exists between "interpretation", which is primarily concerned with the spoken word, and "translation", which is primarily concerned with the written word. In light of the fact that

interpretation involves a process of mediation between two people which must occur on the spot with little opportunity for reflection, it follows that the standard for

interpretation will tend to be lower than it might be for translation, where the source is a written text, where reaction time is usually greater and where conceptual differences which sometimes exist between languages can be more fully accommodated and accounted for. [6] [ 18 ] The standard, then, is not one of perfection. The interpreter is placed in a difficult situation where he is called upon to translate, in the midst of the action, the questions asked or the answers given.

He must sometimes deal with technical wording with which he might not be familiar and he does not have the luxury of checking the proper term in a dictionary. He must also deal with interruptions caused by an objection or even by an intervention on the part of the judge.

[ 19 ] Bearing this in mind, the fact that a better

interpretation might have been possible, with the benefit of hindsight, does not, in itself, constitute a breach of the Appellant’s rights under the Charter . It is important to consider the nature of the answer given and its context in order to evaluate the precision of its translation. [ 20 ] Finally, in order to obtain a new trial, the Appellant does not have the burden of demonstrating that the error caused him prejudice. [7] The error, however, cannot be merely trivial. THE ANALYSIS [ 21 ] The Respondent argues that the Appellant failed to file an expert report concerning the quality of the

interpretation provided during the trial, which she suggested, could justify the dismissal of the appeal. [ 22 ] While such evidence is certainly relevant in similar cases involving

interpretation between either French or English and another language, it was not required in this case. The Court is fluent in both official languages and the concerns raised by the Appellant do not involve technical terms. The Court is therefore able to assess and appreciate the precision of the

interpretation without requiring the additional input of an expert. [ 23 ] The Respondent suggests that the errors listed by the Appellant fall into five categories: (1) the

interpretation is accurate or sought to correct an obvious mistake, (2) the error is excusable or technical, was caused by an interruption by a party to the proceedings or is of no consequence, (3) the

interpretation may not be literal, but the meaning of the original speech was preserved, (4) the error was corrected shortly after it was made, or (5) the error was corrected by the information provided immediately before or after the mistake was made. If that is the case, it cannot be said that the

interpretation lacked precision. [ 24 ] As previously mentioned, the Appellant raises 155 “errors” in his brief which he claims occurred over the duration of the trial, which lasted 40 days. He is essentially inviting us to “examine microscopically” the inconsistencies that he points out in his brief. [ 25 ] It would be laborious to examine these errors one by one in this judgment. However, the Court has done so in the attached schedule. Each discrepancy was considered in its context. For purposes of the analysis the errors have been grouped into categories. 1- The

interpretation is accurate, or sought to correct an obvious mistake [ 26 ] In some instances, the interpreter seems to have taken it upon himself to correct an obvious mistake made by a witness or by the attorney asking the question. [8] In other circumstances, he completed an answer given by the witness. [9] [ 27 ] The Supreme Court has emphasized that the interpreter should translate “as is” without completing or correcting the original speech. [ 28 ] In this case, the problem seldom occurred during the trial.

When it did, it was on secondary facts or in circumstances where the correct question or answer was obvious to all present. 2- The error is excusable or technical, or was caused by an interruption [ 29 ] The Supreme Court has also indicated that that the

interpretation should be given in the first person, as if the person were speaking directly. In one occurrence, the interpreter mentioned “and you saw the witness pull the trigger” instead of saying “and I saw the witness pull the trigger”. [10] This mistake was made only once and certainly does not warrant a new trial. [ 30 ] In a few rare instances, an answer given by a witness was not translated.

This occurred primarily when the judge, or one of the attorneys, intervened in the discussion before the interpreter had the chance to complete his work. [11] This seldom happened and was generally corrected when the question was put to the witness a second time [12] or the part of the answer that was omitted is clear from the context. [13] As previously mentioned, the judge and the attorneys were bilingual and were therefore in a position to intervene if required. [14] Contrary to the improper translation of an answer the absence of a translation was obvious but no one requested that the answer be translated. [15] These errors do not warrant a new trial. 3- The interpreter did not translate the question or answer literally, but the meaning was essentially preserved [ 31 ] The interpreter sometimes failed to give a literal translation of the question asked or the answer given.

He sometimes even added [16] an element to the witness’s answer. The Supreme Court has insisted that interpreters should not do this, because their role is to render the original speech into another language. [17] Where this occurred in the case at bar, however, it can be said that the general meaning was still preserved, and the essence of the message was accurate, [18] especially if the context in which the question was asked, or the answer was given is considered. [19] [ 32 ] This situation often occurred when an answer was long and more technical.

In other instances, the element which was not translated was a secondary fact that did not go to the crux of the matter. [20] [ 33 ] In one instance, for example, the interpreter did not hesitate to mention the fact that he did not know how to translate a specific term.

Additional questions were put to the witness for him to rephrase and explain his answer using different vocabulary. [21] [ 34 ] At times, the interpreter was more precise than the witness, because of the line of questioning by the attorney or because he had the relevant information before him or had heard it from the witness in a prior answer. [ 35 ] On a few occasions, he gave an answer which was the opposite of what the witness had said.

In those cases, the context generally maintained the sense of the testimony. [22] [ 36 ] It is important not to limit the analysis strictly to the answer that is being translated but to keep in mind the previous questions and answers that have been translated. As we will see later, the fact that the witness is referring to a picture, commenting on a video or

on his report is also relevant for assessing the accuracy of the

interpretation. [ 37 ] We must also point out that, in some cases, it is difficult to say if the mistake was made by the interpreter or by the stenographer who prepared the transcripts. [23] [ 38 ] The

interpretation is not perfect. There are some mistakes, but the

interpretation conveys the sense of the witnesses’ testimony. 4- The error was immediately corrected [ 39 ] As previously mentioned, many of the translation errors raised by the Appellant were in fact corrected immediately by the judge, the attorneys and sometimes by the witnesses themselves. [24] For this reason, it is important not to limit ourselves to the translation error pointed out by the Appellant, but to consider the context in which the answer was given. [ 40 ] While the error raised may seem of some consequence when considered by itself, this is not the case if the context in which the answer was given is considered. [25] [ 41 ] For example, during a voir dire, the witness, who is bilingual, answered the question as posed directly in English, without the need for a translation.

The Appellant considers that the following question was not properly interpreted: Q. And with the… between the prints that you lifted and the prints that were taken on October seventeen (17). My question is, to come to that conclusion did you make the comparison only with the prints taken… upon Mr Little’s arrest or not? R. Pouvez-vous… juste pour être sûr. I. Est-ce que vous êtes arrivé à cette conclusion seulement au moment où vous avez arrêté Monsieur Little ou pas? [26] [ 42 ] He fails however to mention that immediately after this exchange the judge intervened: Q. Non.

Non, non, non, it’s not… no, the question is… Me DAVID SIMON: That’s not the question. [ 43 ] The judge then proceeded to explain the question to ensure that the witness’s answer would be clear and complete. [ 44 ] There are numerous examples where the Appellant fails to consider the context in which the translation was done. [27] This strategy is misleading and unfair in that it disregards the reality within which the interpreter was working. It also required the Court to carefully scrutinize the transcript in order to assess the precision of the

interpretation. [ 45 ] On many occasions the mistake was immediately corrected by the witness, the judge, or the attorneys. [28] It would be contrary to the interests of the justice system to order a new trial when an imprecise translation has immediately been corrected. 5- The error was corrected by the fact that the appellant, the members of the jury, the judge and the attorneys had access to supporting evidence (pictures, maps, letters, reports, copies of text messages, etc.) which allowed them to understand the question or answer [ 46 ] In other instances, the interpreter made a mistake when translating the number of an exhibit, [29] a date [30] or time [31] , or an address [32] mentioned in a question or answer.

However, it appears from the general context in which a reference to these elements was made that the mistake could not have been the source of any confusion, because the evidence was being presented in the courtroom. [ 47 ] For example, the address of Ms. Dammier’s apartment was mentioned several times during the trial and was not a contested fact.

The error made by the interpreter, on one occasion, regarding the apartment number [33] or the name of the street is excusable. [ 48 ] On a few occasions the interpreter did not refer to the right number for a picture [34] or to the accurate time for a specific sequence in a video. [35] However, the context reveals that, at the time, the exhibit was being presented, such that no one in the courtroom could have been misled by the mistake. [36] [ 49 ] This is also true when a witness was testifying while referring to an exhibit [37] or to a report. [38] This allowed everyone in the courtroom to have a clear understanding of the witness’s testimony.

Furthermore, the error did not change the essence of the witness’s testimony. [ 50 ] The Court must also exercise caution given that, contrary to persons present in the courtroom, we do not have the benefit of having seen the witnesses testify. [39] For example, the ballistic expert had the weapon in his hand while explaining the fact that it was sawed off and that the forend was missing. The

interpretation was more technical and a bit less precise, but this element, and the content of the report filed by the expert which, essentially, repeated the same information as his testimony, compensated for these errors. * * * * * [ 51 ] For the reasons set forth above, the Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the

interpretation, although it may not have been perfect, was not sufficiently precise. He has simply pointed out 155 errors committed during a long trial, without discriminating whatsoever as to the nature of the error or its potential impact. He has failed to consider the evidence that was being presented at the time, the context in which the error occurred or the corrections that were made subsequently.

[ 52 ] Even if an accused does not have to prove a prejudice in order for a new trial to be warranted, the

interpretation error cannot be purely incidental or concern a secondary fact. The work of an interpreter is demanding—it is done live, in the context of a courtroom where technical and legal issues are being discussed. The interpreter does not have the benefit of hindsight; he cannot look over the transcript and compare the original speech to the translation. Under the circumstances of this case, in which the attorneys and the judge spoke both languages and the Appellant had some knowledge of the French language, it cannot be said that the Appellant’s right to an interpreter was violated.

He had access to a consecutive translation that was continuous, precise, impartial, competent and contemporaneous, even if it was not perfect at all times. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 53 ] DISMISSES the appeal. GENEVIÈVE COTNAM, J.A. STÉPHANE SANSFAÇON, J.A. CHRISTINE BAUDOUIN, J.A. Mtre Réginal Victorin For the Appellant Mtre Richard Audet DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL AND PENAL PROSECUTIONS For the Respondent Date of hearing: April 28 th , 2022

Schedule 1 list of

interpretation errors Original question or answer

Interpretation Comment 1 R. Donc, plusieurs... avec différents angles de... avec le flash de l'appareil photo, le reflet fait ressortir la substance rougeâtre à différents endroits. I. So positioning the flash of the camera at different angle you have different contrasts on the picture. The witness was commenting on a picture. 2 R. Donc, il s'agit d'une vue de l'Apt. 22 du 311, des Oblats I. This was Apt. 23 at 311 des Oblats The address was not in dispute and the mistake was corrected a few lines below. 3 R.

Donc, pour localiser l'endroit de cet escalier nous devons la déplacer sous l'escalier visible, là, sur le plan, près de la porte du deuxième étage, là. I. This part of the diagram, the first floor door, was actually underneath the diagram for the staircase you have in the main diagram. The witness was testifying about a diagram that was being projected in the courtroom for all to see. 4 R. Oui, donc c'est afin de préserver la scène de crime, pour éviter la contamination par des piétons, passage de voitures, contrôle étanche de la scène. I.

So this was to preserve the scene and prevent its contamination by pedestrians or traffic. The witness was testifying about a video. The translation was not word for word but conveyed the fact that the goal was to protect the crime scene. 5 R. Oui, donc en haut complètement, à la droite, où on voit un balcon avec une toile bleue entre les barreaux , il s'agit de l'appartement concerné, l'Apt. 22. I. Yes, top right-hand side, the balcony with a kind of stretch across the balcony, that's Apt.22 The witness was referring to a picture or video. The stretch could be seen even if the color was not mentioned.

6 R. Ce panneau de mémoire il s'agissait de... le panneau avec les... les disjoncteurs I. A breaker box. Translation properly conveyed the idea of what could be seen in the video. 7 R. Oui, cette arme, évidemment, elle a été tronçonnée, ce qui veut dire que le canon a été coupé, ainsi que la crosse pour tenir l'arme a été coupée, ce qui fait qu'elle est beaucoup plus courte. I. Yes, the barrel was obviously sawed off and the forestock of the shotgun was also sawed off. Some elements were not translated but the weapon described could be seen in the video. 8 R.

Oui, donc on peut voir des emballages de plastique transparent. I. Yes, we can see plastic wrappings. Everyone in the courtroom could see in the video that the wrappings were translucent. 9 R. Oui, donc dû à la force de projection de la décharge du fusil, plusieurs petits plombs ont été... sont visibles à cet endroit. I. So given the triggering of the shotgun, many traces of lead can be observed on this area. Q. Maybe more... discharge of the firearm, rather than triggering? I. Discharge, thank you. That's not my main area but I try.» This mistake was corrected by the attorney. 10 « R.

Oui, donc la première photo qui a été prise pour l'album pour les photographes , elle a été prise toujours avec ma carte d'identité de technicien à quatorze heures quarante-cinq (14h45) le neuf (9) octobre. I. So the first picture that was taken it was taken with my card, it was taken on the ninth (9th) of October, at four forty- five (4:45). The proper time was visible on the picture the witness was referring to. 11 R. C'était une accumulation de sang, ce n'est pas des gouttes ont tombé, c'est vraiment une accumulation de sang sur des souliers qui ont été transporté (inaudible).

I. it's an accumulation of blood on shoes, it's not really drops of blood that have... that have come out, that have fallen down. The essence of the translation was the same. Moreover, the witness was able to give further details after the attorney stated: “not sure I follow you”. Original question or answer

Interpretation Comment

12 Q. And the basis for the comparison that you conducted and your conclusions at the report, these conclusions are solely based on your examination of the prints taken upon Mr. Little's arrest on October seventeen (17)? R. Oui, c'est une comparaison manuelle de l'empreinte trouvée sur la scène avec les empreintes prises pour cet événement. Q. Solely with that set of prints? Uniquely with that set of prints, with no other... R. Toutes les séries, dont de les deux rapports de... » I. Seulement... uniquement avec cet (sic) série d'empreintes? This exchange took place during a voir-dire.

The answer was not translated. The witness was asked the question again on the following page and the answer was translated. 13 R. Pardon, juste pour être sûr que vous comprenez bien . C'est que la première fois, deux jours après, lorsque j'ai pu identifier une première analyse d'empreintes... I. So the first time, two days later, once I was able to make a first print analysis... This followed an exchange between the witness and the interpreter. The witness was answering the questions as asked in English but requested the interpreter’s help. The introductory comment was not translated.

It was not a relevant fact. 14 R . Effectivement, oui, les empreintes restantes ont été mis dans la "database", dans la banque de données . I. Yes, they were... The interpreter was interrupted but, in the context surrounding the question, the answer given clear. 15 Q. And when did this occur? R. La date exacte du retour je ne peux pas dire, il y a eu... Q. But approximately, just give us... was it within days of... of... how would you say? Q. Quand est-ce que c'est arrivé? I. Est-ce que c'était dans les jours suivants ou...

The answer was not translated but it was repeated in English in the questions that followed. 16 R. Que je me suis rendu compte qu'il y avait ces empreintes qui avaient... qui n'avaient pas encore été identifiées formellement dans... pour ce dossier . The answer was not translated but the facts were incorporated within the next question which was properly translated. Original question or answer

Interpretation Comment

17 R. R- 1 n'a pas été identifiée à personne encore aujourd'hui . This was not translated. 18 R. Oui, parce qu'elle a été traitée avec des produits chimiques. This was a technical discussion with the witness on how to install a picture on the projector. 19 R. Oui, donc tous les endroits , les objets qui ont nécessité une attention de ma part pour les empreintes de chaussures, les empreintes digitales... I. So all the places that required attention from me, such as shoe prints, fingerprints...» 19 This translated the essence of the answer considering the context in which it was given. 20 A.

Normalement, elle devrait descendre parce que sinon elle serait... The judge cut in before the answer could be translated. The answer was translated in the following page. 21 A. Non, je ne me souvenais pas dans les détails qu’elle n’était plus sur le parapluie . Interruption by the judge before the answer could be translated. The answer was translated on the following page. 22 Q. Okay. So you mentioned that there was no traces of invisible blood in the sink, right? […] A. Okay, exactement. Me DAVID SIMON: His answer must be translated. Following this intervention the answer was translated. 23 Q.

So you don’t know the origin of that... those cuts? I. Donc, vous ne connaissez pas la source de cette coupure? A. Non . The question summarized the previous answer which was translated. 24 «Q. Can you please identify on the sketch by pointing your finger or pen on the projector the whereabouts of what we see at minute sixteen and twelve seconds (16:12) ? I. Pourriez-vous pointer soit avec votre doigt, soit avec un crayon, l'endroit exact auquel vous faisiez référence à la seizième minute et dix secondes (16:10)? The time frame could be seen by all on the video . 25 Q.

At minute twenty-five and fifty seconds (25:50) can you describe what we see on the far right of the image on the wall? I. Donc, à vingt-cinq cinquante-deux (25:52) est-ce que vous pourriez décrire qu'est-ce que l'on voit à l'extrême droite du mur, sur le mur? The time frame could be seen by all on the video. 26 Q. I've put on the screen photograph 173 , would that be the first photograph of the prints? I. Donc, j'ai mis à l'écran la photo numéro 123(sic) , est-ce que ça correspondrait à la première photo des empreintes? The correct picture was being presented. 27 R.

Oui, donc toujours sur le plancher, vraiment à l'embrassure du cadrage du côté de la chambre. I. So once again on the floor, next to the door frame of the... on the inside of the room. The video was being presented during the trial. 28 R. Lorsque je parle d'une trace de chaussure... pas de chaussure, une trace de pied de bas ... I. And when we're talking about a footprint... The video was being presented. In previous and in further questions, the interpreter did distinguish between a shoeprint and a footprint. 29 R. Non, je me souviens pas exactement s'il y avait un crochet à cet endroit. I.

No, I don't remember whether there was a hook or any other device . The picture was being presented. The previous question had referred to an object on the wall capable of being used to hang a photograph. Original question or answer

Interpretation Comment

30 R. Oui, donc on peut voir au centre de la photo un trou dans le mur où des... des cheveux sont accrochés. I. Yes, we can see in the middle of the wall that there's a whole to which some hair was attached. The picture was being presented and the hole was quite obvious. 31 R. Oui, donc il s'agit de E- 10, deux mégots de cigarettes. I . So E-10, two white cigarette butts. The picture of the cigarette butts was being presented. 32 R. Oui, donc ça c'est le numéro d'identification de... le numéro de l'Exhibit donné sur la scène à l'Exhibit. I.

No , this was the Exhibit number that was assigned, given at the scene to the Exhibit. Even if there was a mistake, it did not modify the essence of the answer to the effect that the number was the exhibit number given at the scene. 33 R. Normalement la majorité des empreintes vont être invisibles à l'oeil nu. I. Normally the vast majority of the prints are going to be visible to the naked eye . This could also be a transcription error. Even if not, placed in the context, it has no impact because the witness had been explaining why and when powder was used to identify prints.

He then referred to one specific print which was visible to the naked eye. 34 A. De mémoire, je ne pourrais pas vous dire s’il y avait des traces d’empreinte car elles ne sont pas compilées dans les rapports. I. I can’t recall whether there were traces of prints because they are consigned in the report .» After explaining what can be considered as good quality prints, the witness mentioned that there were a large number of bad prints on the premises that were not recovered. The witness was testifying that no good quality prints were recovered on the living room wall.

When asked if bad quality prints were recovered, he mentioned that he could not recall. The fact that there was a translation error was obvious from the context. 35 Q. And with the... between the prints that you lifted and the prints that were taken on October seventeen (17). My question was, to come to that conclusion did you make the comparaison only with the prints taken at... upon Mr. Little's arrest or not? R. Pouvez-vous... juste pour être sûr. I. Est-ce que vous êtes arrivé à cette conclusion seulement au moment où vous avez arrêté Monsieur Little ou pas?

The attorney intervened and the question was rephrased by the judge in English. Original question or answer

Interpretation Comment

36 R. Oui, le dessus des mains n'est pas la surface volaire, il n'y a pas de crêtes, le dessus des mains c'est de l'huile sébacée. R. Et également de transpiration. Des glandes... il y a des glandes sudoripares et des glandes sébacées. Q. Okay, Mr. Fournier... translate. I. So on the top of the hands there was sweat glands. R. Et également de transpiration. Des glandes... il y a des glandes sudoripares et des glandes sébacées. I. Je ne sais pas « sébacé ». Sweat glands I know.

The interpreter mentioned that he didn’t know how to translate “sébacé”, so the attorney asked the witness a series of questions in order to further explain that word. 37 A. Du fait que l’on peut voir sur une photo; sur une autre photo précédente on verrait plus large. I. Since we can see on a previous picture that we will see later . This could be a transcription error. Even if not, considering the context, this mistake was of no consequence. 38 A. Oui, R-11, il s’agit de l’empreinte du pouce gauche trouvée dans le sang de monsieur Little. A.

Et pour plus de précision, il ne s’agit pas du sang de monsieur Little, c'est dans le sang. I. So this was the print of the left thumb found in a reddwash substance of Mr. Little. I. The print was found in blood and matched Mr. Little. The picture was being presented and the attorney asked a complementary question to which the witness answered, saying he did not know whose blood it was. 39 A.

Alors on peut aller fouiller l’extérieur étant donné que c’était un bloc appartement les corridors, les choses comme ça mais à l’intérieur de l’appartement 22 comme tel, on ne pénètre pas à l’intérieur, les derniers policiers qui sont sortis ça a été la dernière fois qu’il est entré quelqu’un à l’intérieur en attendant qu’on ait le mandat de perquisition. I. We cannot investigate the outside vicinity of the building that’s okay, but apart, the inside of apartment 22 was off limits.

When the last police officer walked out of that apartment on the initial call that was it, nobody went back in until we got the warrants. The essence of the answer was clear: the police could not search inside the premisses without a warrant. Original question or answer

Interpretation Comment

40 A. À l’extérieur de l’appartement il y avait des gouttelettes, bien en fait des taches de sang je dirais qui étaient je ne sais pas si vous vous êtes entendus pour savoir quels sont les niveaux où est, qu’est-ce qui est le premier étage, deuxième étage ou premier étage...? […] I. Well for outside the apartment or before this (inaudible), outside the apartment there were droplets or blood at I would say rather blood stains, but then did you agree on all of that? The essence of the answer was translated regarding droplets of blood.

The part that was not translated was a question by the witness to the attorney in order to know if they had agreed on how to refer to each floor of the building. 41 A. À l’exception des appartements 3 et 4, tous les autres locataires entrent par le 311 Bergevin. Q. You said Bergevin but you translated Des Oblats. To make it clear it’s Des Oblats? I. And except apartments 3 and 4, all other tenants need to use, have to use the door at 311 Des Oblats . I. It’s Des Oblats. The interpreter corrected the address given by the witness.

The interpreter repeated the correct answer, which was subsequently confirmed by the judge and the witness. 42 A. Je vous ai dit quand on arrive sur les lieux on se fait briefer par les policiers, les premiers policiers sur les lieux. Alors, lors de ce briefing- là les premiers policiers en arrivant n’avaient pas remarqué ces gouttes là et ils ont l’information que j’avais eue c’est quand ils ont sorti la victime Monsieur Maxime, il y a des gouttes qui provenaient de la victime qui ont tombé dans l’escalier. I.

As I said earlier when you get to the scene you are being briefed by the first responders so I was told by the first responders when we entered, when we went up to the apartment they did not notice any blood drops it’s only when they took the victim out, Maxime out of the apartment, the victim was dripping blood. The essence of the answer was translated. 43 A. À vingt-et-une heures trente-quatre (21 h 34), dans la chambre de la victime toujours sur l’étagère de plastique. Ici, on la voit sur la photo, peut-être si je peux m’approcher puis aller la pointer. […] A.

Sur la photo, ici sur la petite étagère, il y a un petit pot métallique ici. Pour les fins d’enregistrement, c'est à droite sur la photo, sur le dessus d’une étagère de plastique à trois (3) tiroirs . I. So at twenty-one hours thirty-four (21:34), I seized on the plastic shelf a metal container and we can see on the picture on top and it was to be found on the plastic bac containing three (3) drawers. It was obvious from the context in which the answer was given that the witness was in the victim’s bedroom. Original question or answer

Interpretation Comment

44 A. À vingt-deux heures vingt (22 h 20 ), toujours dans la chambre de la victime , dans la sacoche noire de la victime, Mme Marjorie, qui était accrochée à la porte, on voit l’autre photo. I. So at twenty-two hours twenty (22:20), I seized a black purse which belonged to Mrs. Marjorie, it was hanging on the door. It was obvious from the context in which the answer was given that the witness was in the victim’s bedroom. 45 A. Et le numéro de la carte était le D comme Delta, A alpha, M Mike, M Mike 8361613 . I. The card number being [...] . The number could clearly be seen on the picture of the card.

Moreover, the interpreter was correcting an obvious mistake made by the witness (missing number). 46 A. Un journal personnel débutant le vingt-deux (22) février deux mille treize

(2013) I. A personal diary starting the twentieth (20th) of February two thousand thirteen (2013). This had no impact because the picture of the diary was presented during the testimony. 47 A. Mais pour faire le trou qu’il y a là, il y aussi une bourre qu’ils appellent pour renfermer toutes les plombs dans la cartouche. I. But in order to create such an impact there’s also like a sort of a beneath the powder, I’m not sure how it’s called but it’s right beneath the powder . The interpreter did not know the exact translation of the word and clearly said so.

This allowed for additional questioning of the witness to clarify this issue. 48 A. Dans lesquels il y avait de la vaisselle , des jouets et des vêtements féminins encore. I. In which there were utensils , toys and once again women’s clothing. The witness was describing the content of plastic containers. The fact that the interpreter used the word utensils instead of “dishes” was not relevant. 49 Q. Est-ce qu’elle a fini par dire que c’est au même endroit. I. I asked the police officer whether it was in the same place, it remained in the same place.

Following an intervention by the judge, the answer was corrected. 50 A. C'est un petit peu plus loin que ce qu’on voit sur la photo ici» Following an interruption by the attorney specifying that the witness was referring to picture 77, this was not translated. 51 A. L’appel stipule que l’appelant entend des cris d’une femme à l’intérieur de l’appartement 22 . I. The call stipulates that the call, the appellant was a lady that was screaming inside that apartment 22. The translation was inaccurate. Neither the attorney nor the judge raised it because there was an interruption due to the arrival of another witness.

The evidence established that the call was made by another witness, who testified and who clearly said she had made the call. Furthermore, the judge mentioned that this part of the testimony was to be considered as investigative hearsay. 52 R. Puisque j’ai pas fait des manœuvres physiques sur l’homme et j’éclairais seulement l’homme, je n’ai pas eu à me mettre près de la marre de sang qui était sous l’homme. I. So I didn’t have to get... je n’ai pas eu à me mettre près? I didn’t have to get closer to the pool of blood that was underneath the man.

Although this was not a verbatim translation, the answer, which was given to complete prior answers, was clear when placed in the context. 53 R. 311, pardon, appartement 22 , pardon, 311 des Oblats. I. Outside of 311 des Oblats The interpreter corrected the answer. The address was a well- established fact and was not in issue. 54 R. Pas devant moi. I. Not as far as I can recall. This was not a verbatim translation but it concerned a secondary element : whether a policeman saw his colleague ring the doorbell. Original question or answer

Interpretation Comment

55 R. Effectivement, je suis très, très sensible à la menace qui peut toujours se trouver sur place. I. In fact, I am very, very sensitive, aware of the trace that could be around me. This could be a transcription error. Even if not, it was clear from the context and the question asked that the officer was explaining that he was alert to a possible threat when entering the apartment. 56 A. Vu que ma distance ou que j’étais, je voyais le dos de certains intervenants. I. Since from the distance I was at, I was able to see the back of the first respondants and paramedics.

This was not a verbatim translation, but the translation was consistent with the witness’s previous answers. 57 A. Non, vu qu’on était, la policière et les policiers étaient en choc, là, en voyant la scène. I. No, since the female officers and the police officers were shocked upon seeing the scene. There was only one female officer, but the error did not change the essence of the answer. 58 R. Oui.

Cette journée-là, je travaillais de jour avec ma partenaire, l’agent Pelletier-Blanchard, et puis on nous a... mon Sergent nous a demandé d’aller rencontrer le Sergent... le Détective Hamelin face au 414 Oka, à LaSalle, puis à cet endroit-là l’enquêteur devait nous dire qu’est-ce qu’on en... on allait faire. I. Yes, that day I was on the day shift with my partner Officer Pelletier- Blanchard. Our sergeant asked us to go and connect with Detective Hamelin at 411(sic) Oka, in LaSalle, and there we were to be told what was expected of us.

This was an error in the translation of the address but it was clear from the context that the policemen were at the accused’s apartment. 59 R. Oui. Quand qu’on est arrivées sur les lieux, on a rencontré l’Enquêteur Hamelin. Il nous a expliqué avoir procédé à l’arrestation de Monsieur Altamond Junior Little à onze heures quarante (11:40) pour les motifs de meurtre . Également, il nous a dit lui avoir donné ses droits. Le prévenu était, quand on est arrivées, assis à bord de l’auto patrouille des patrouilleurs Carrier et Girouard. I. Once there, Officer Hamelin told us that he had proceeded with the arrest of Mr.

Little at eleven forty (11:40). Mr. Little was arrested for murder. When we got there, Mr. Little was already in the cruiser, the cruiser of Officer Carrier and... qui était le deuxième? The interpreter failed to translate the fact Officer Hamelin mentioned having read the accused his rights. This was a error but had no impact as this was not an issue at trial. 60 R. PDQ 13, ça c’est notre poste de travail, chaîne de possession, "Reçu de Véronique Dubuc, matricule 5341, avec la date du seize (16) octobre, donc, la date où je l’avais. I.

And then the mention of PDQ 13, Precinct 13, my precinct, continuity of possession, so it indicates that the item was received from Véronique Dubuc, 5341. The date on which the evidence was bagged was confirmed in the following question. 61 R. Si Monsieur aurait... avait eu une blessure majeure, c’est sûr qu’en faisant le changement pour... de ses vêtements pour un habit de papier blanc, j’en aurais pris connaissance mais quelque... il y a rien de majeur que je me souviens I.

If he would have been seriously injured, when he changed into the white paper overall, I would have notice., but I don’t remember noticing anything The essence of the answer was translated: the witness would have noticed an injury when the accused changed into the white paper overall. 62 R. Alors, le numéro séquentiel (04) correspond au 414 d’Oka, à Ville LaSalle. I. So 04 was the number for the scene at 414 d’Oka Street The interpreter did not mention that the address was in Ville Lasalle. This fact was known and had been admitted (P-32) Original question or answer

Interpretation Comment

63 R. Alors, à la

section où c’est précisé l’endroit, dans mon rapport il est précisé "Sous la table de la cuisine, 414 d’Oka, LaSalle". Q. Okay. I. So for location, I specified under the kitchen table, at 414 d’Oka. Did not mention that the address was in Ville Lasalle. The fact was known and had been admitted (P-32) 64 R. Alors, à la photo 62, on voit un numéro 1, ce numéro sert à identifier la pièce qui sera récupérée, soit le sabre rouge. Et les photos suivantes seront les photos de la pièce en question. I. On this picture, you can see the tag number 1, it’s indicating an item that will be seized, it’s the red sword or saber.

Part of the answer was not translated but the question was asked again, answered and translated. 65 R. À la photo 105, on peut voir un sac, soit la pièce 408 , identifié par le numéro 8 . Un sac bleu marin et noir et sur la table , près du sac, constitue le contenu du sac. I. At picture 105 you can see item 408, E-408, which was a bag, a navy blue and black bag. Next to it, its contents. The picture on which the witness was testifying was being presented. 66 A. Exactement. Au final, c'est l’enquêteur Provencher qui va m’indiquer les différents items à récupérer. I. Yeah, correct.

At the end of the day, the Investigator decides what we seize. It was clear from the context that the investigator who made the decisions was Mr. Provencher. 67 A. Je vous dirais que certainement parce qu’il y avait une équipe d’enquêteurs qui effectuait la fouille dans les appartements et à peu près tous les objets que moi j’ai récupérés ont été déplacés à un certain moment donné, pour évaluer la pertinence dans cet événement-là. À savoir si cet objet devait être récupéré ou non. I.

Certainly, there were a few Investigators searching the place, so they were moving things to assess the relevancy of seizing them or not. The essence of the answer was translated: the objects in the apartment were moved at a certain point. 68 R. Oui, c’est exact. J’ai récupéré les vêtements le dix-huit (18 ) octobre mais j’ai photographié la série de vêtements le dix-neuf (19) octobre . I. That’s correct. I took possession of the articles of clothing on the eighteenth (18th) but took the pictures on the nineteenth (19th).»

The context and the report prepared by the witness left no doubt that the 18 th and the 19th referred to the month of October. 69 R. Alors, à la photo 10, on voit un chandail vert Jacob, grandeur medium. I. This was a medium- size Jacob sweater. The color of the sweater was clear on the picture being presented. 70 R. Alors, la photo 25, on voit la porte de l’en... d’entrée de la chambre des maîtres, soit la porte avec le chandail rouge rayé bleu et noir. I. This was the door to the master bedroom. This was the door from which the blue and red sweater was hanging.

The color of the sweater was clear on the picture being presented. Original question or answer

Interpretation Comment

71 R. Je peux aller vous le pointer mais c’est les ganses noires que nous voyons sur la chaise noire ... sur la chaise sous la table, à la chaise de droite I. I could point it out on the screen for you but it’s... you can see the straps on the chair under the table, right-hand side of the picture. The color of the strap was clear on the picture being presented, as well as the color of the chair. 72 R. Alors, à la photo 76 on peut voir une photo de la pièce 404 , qui est une facture de Pizza Time . I. 76 was a close up of E- 403 , an invoice from Pizza Time. The exhibit was being presented. 73 R.

L’adresse de ce commerce, selon la facture, serait le 1655 Dollard, à Ville LaSalle . I. So the address, according to the invoice, was 1650(sic ) Dollard Boulevard, in LaSalle. The address appeared clearly on the picture presented. 74 R. Alors à la photo 78, c’est l’item 494 . I. 78 was of E- 404 . The interpreter took it upon himself to state the correct exhibit number. The witness corrected his answer afterwards. 75 R. À la photo 84, on peut voir le numéro 5 qui indique l’emplacement de la pièce E-405 , soit un chandail kangourou gris. I. 84 was of the location of item 40 , a grey hoodie.

The translation of the answer was incomplete, but the witness was referring to a picture that was being presented. 76 R. À la photo 151, on peut apercevoir une couverture bleue royale, numérotée avec le numéro 12 , soit la pièce E-413. I. So 151 was a blanket, royal blue blanket, tagged with number 13, item E- 413. The exhibit number was incorrect, but all could see the picture the witness was referring to. 77 R. Non, le sac, au moment des photos générales, se trouvait sous la table de la cuisine, sur la chaise . I. No, when taking the shot... before taking the shots, the bag was under the table, under the chair.

The translation was incorrect, but on the picture being presented the bag was clearly visible on the chair. 78 R. Non, le seul examen que j’ai fait c’est le... de le manipuler pour les photographies et il a immédiatement été déposé dans un sac de papier pour conserver l’intégralité de la preuve. I. No, the only examination I conducted was to handle the bag to take pictures of it and then forwarded it to the lab . The translation was not accurate, but the witnesses then recognized the evidence bag, her handwriting on the bag and the description of the item. This had no real impact.

The chain of possession was not at issue. 79 R. Alors, à la photo 147, nous nous trouvons dans l’aire de passage, entre la chambre des maîtres et la chambre secondaire , et le numéro 12 a pour but de vous localiser le... la pièce à conviction E-412, soit un autre téléphone cellulaire. I. 147 was a picture of the hallway. Tag number 12 was to indicate the location of E-412, which was a second cell phone. The answer was incomplete but the picture to which the witness was referring was being presented. 80 R.

Pour d’autres sortes de sang, ça ne réagira pas nécessairemen t mais le sang humain et le sang de primates ça va réagir. I. The reagent does not react to other types of blood, but it was reacting for... on human and primate red blood cells. The word « nécessairement » was not translated but, considering the general context, it had no impact. 81 A. Oui, c'est exact.

Alors, le numéro a été mis seulement après l’examen en chimiluminescence soit l’examen au BlueStar; étant donné qu’il y avait eu une luminescence , l’enquêteur m’a demandé de récupérer cette pièce- là, c'est pour cette raison qu’elle a obtenu une cote, soit la cote 13 pour le E- 413. I. Yes, that’s correct, it’s after the BlueStar test that we became interested in this item and that’s why, because of the positive test, it was seized and became E-413. Although the translation was not verbatim, it reflected the essence of the testimony: it was after a positive result with the Blue Star that item E-413 was seized.

Original question or answer

Interpretation Comment

82 R. Non, si vous permettez de l’expliquer là. Comment ça fonctionne sur un événement de ce genre, soit une perquisition particulièrement dans les cas avec les enquêteurs des crimes majeurs. I. No, if you allow me to explain how we work for a search warrant for this type of event; especially when involving Major Crime Unit Investigators There was a technical error in the translation because the witness was referring to the search itself while the translation referred to a search warrant. However, the answers given afterwards by the witness made it clear that she was discussing the search itself. 83 A.

Alors, c'est ce qui m’a été demandé par l’enquêteur, Christian Provencher. J’ai fait les photos générales de tout l’appartement dans son entier. Par la suite, il y a eu la fouille et lorsqu’un enquêteur trouvait un exhibit pouvant être pertinent pour la cause, il le laissait à l’endroit où il l’avait déplacé et par la suite, moi, je vais prendre possession de cet objet I. And that’s what I did, I took the establishing shot. As for the request of Christian Provencher, the Investigator, and after the establishing shots, we proceeded with the search of the location.

When an exhibit was found , I am then asked to take a picture of it at the location where it was moved by the Investigator. The translation was incomplete but a more complete answer was given and translated afterwards. 84 A. J’ai effectué mon doctorat en médecine de deux mille (2000) à deux mille cinq (2005) à l’Université Laval à Québec. A. Et j’ai poursuivi une formation spécialisée, ce qu’on appelle une résidence en anatomopathologie à la même université de deux mille cinq (2005) à deux mille dix (2010 ). A. L’Université Laval. I. I completed medical school at the Université de Laval in Québec City. I.

I made a specialty in anatomopathology, a residency in the field at the... l’hôpital, je m’excuse. I. At the Laval Université The dates were not translated. The qualification of the witness as an expert was admitted. 85 A. Oui, en fait, le corps de Mme Dammier était vêtu de la manière suivante, une camisole grise à motif. I. The body of Mrs. Dammier was dressed in the following manner, she had a sleeveless body shirt. The translation seems to have reflected the essence of the answer.

Furthermore, the expert report, which was translated into English, referred to the fact that the victim was wearing a grey printed sleeveless shirt. This was also evidenced in multiple pictures. 86 A. Le piercing de la narine a été laissé sur le corps mais les autres effets ont été remis au bureau du coroner pour que ce soit remis à la famille. I. The piercing at the nostril was left on the body but all the other items were recovered and remitted to the family. The translation reflected the essence of the testimony : the piercing was left on the body and the other items were remitted to the family. 87 A.

En d’autres termes, c'est comme si les projectiles avaient frôlé la tête mais... et avaient atteint la victime quand même. I. In other words, the projectile brushed against the victim but still striking her. The interpreter failed to translate that the bullet had brushed against the victim’s head. The context and the nature of the wound left no doubt, however. Original question or answer

Interpretation Comment

88 A. Donc, évidemment, j’étais pas présent sur les lieux au moment des événements et je peux pas déterminer la position exacte de la victime à l’autopsie . I. Of course, I was not there when this occurred so it’s impossible for me from the autopsy alone to say in what position the victim was in when struck. The answer was more precise but the essence was the same, considering that the questions asked prior to this one related to the position of the victim before the shot. 89 A. À l’autopsie, j’avais prélevé les rallonges et des cheveux autour de la plaie. A.

Pour expertise en balistique justement à la recherche de grains de poudre dans les cheveux. I. At autopsy, I collected the hair, some hair extensions and actual hair around the wound. I. And I sent them to the ballistic

section especially to look for grains of propellant in the hair extensions and hair. The witness did not mention that it was he himself who had sent the hair and hair extensions to the ballistic section. The translation reflected the essence of the testimony : these items had been sent to the ballistic section. This was not really in dispute and the ballistic expert filed a report and testified. 90 A. Par contre, si la distance augmente entre la bouche du canon et le corps. I. But as distance increases between the muzzle of the shotgun and the body it will strike. The interpreter added some information.

It was obvious from the line of questioning that the issue was the distance between the bullet and the body it would strike. 91 A. Mais ne vient pas atteindre le poumon, c'est néanmoins des blessures importantes qui ont participé à l’hémorragie. I. Did not strike the lung but nevertheless, severe injuries that were contributory to the fatal hemorrhage. The interpreter added some information by saying that the hemorrhage was fatal. This was consistent with the content of the pathology report the witness was testifying about. 92 R. Pas tout à fait horizontal.

Alors que dans la plaie numéro 3, la trajectoire montante était très franche. I. So for number 5, not exactly horizontal but slightly upwards, but for number 3, the path was straight up. The translation was not verbatim but the information concerning number 5 was in the question asked. 93 A. Habituellement, c'est... on peut pas dire qu’on trouve habituellement des lésions mais on peut retrouver des lésions si une force est appliquée sur le cou avec les mains. I.

Well, usually, you cannot say that we usually find lesions at the neck when force was applied but you may find lesions at the neck when force was applied to the neck. The translation was not a verbatim but the answer was completed with the answers that followed. 94 A. Et pour recherche d’indice de proximité de tir, les rallonges et les cheveux autour de la plaie ont été collectés. I. And for close range shooting evidence, we collected the hair extensions and some actual hair.

The answer was incomplete but the general context could be understood especially given that the question was subsequently put to the witness on cross- examination. 95 A. Donc, le corps de monsieur Calado est parvenu dans un sac mortuaire scellé, couché sur le dos et nu. I. So the body of Mr. Calado arrived at the autopsy room in a body bag, a sealed body bag. The body was naked. The fact that the body was on its back was not relevant. 96 A. Et a coupé l’artère sous-claviaire gauche de même que la crosse aortique, c'est des grosses artères au niveau du thorax. I.

They cut the left subclavian vein and the aortic arch, those are major, large blood vessels. The fact that the interpreter did not specify that the stab wounds were in the chest was not important as this was obvious from the line of questioning. 97 A. La plaie, pour toujours le schéma, donc numéro 1 , plaie numéro 9 située dans la région inguinale gauche donc le bas de l’abdomen à gauche . I. The number 9 was located at the lower abdomen. The interpreter did not mention that the injury was on the left side. However, the witness was testifying and referring to diagrams in his report. Original question or answer

Interpretation Comment

98 R. Et d’un autre côté, quelqu’un peut se casser un ongle pour beaucoup de raisons aussi, ça fait que c’est seulement une information que j’apporte . Q. Okay. I. And on the other hand, someone may break a fingernail for... it can be so many situations. The translation seems to have conveyed the essence of the witness’s answer. 99 R. Bien en fait c’est que la poudre propulsée dans une cartouche quand elle est enflammée va produire de la suie, et c’est cette suie- là qui peut venir se déposer sur le corps. Ça, ça indique une proximité de tir . I.

Well, when a cartridge was fired the propulsive powder inside the cartridge would ignite, this will create soot and the soot may end up on the victim’s body. The translation was not verbatim and lacked precision. The attorney and corrected the mention “victim’s body”. At that stage the witness was under cross-examination and had already testified on the soot and the proximity of the gun. 100 R. Oui, oui, absolument. Je ne suis pas un dessinateur, je ne suis pas spécialiste en dessin, mais j’essaie d’orienter les plaies verticalement, de biais , ou horizontalement, de la façon dont je les ai vus sur le corps. I.

Yes, I am not a sketch artist but I do try to illustrate the wounds as they were on the body, either horizontally or vertically. The translation seems to have conveyed the essence of the witness’s answer. 101 R. Je ne suis pas venu à une conclusion, c’était une hypothèse, c’est resté une hypothèse après la fin des analyses que ça pourrait être un tatouage de poudre sur la joue gauche . Parce que ça pas été confirmé scientifiquement et que ça pas toutes les caractéristiques classiques d’un tatouage de poudre . I. Yes, but I’ll nuance a little bit.

I did not find that it was a powder tattoo, it was a hypothesis, it was not scientifically confirmed. Following an intervention by the judge, the interpreter completed the answer: “ the

part I missed was it did not have the typical feature of a powder tattoo.” 102 A. Oui, bien, tout comme pour l’autopsie de Mme Dammier , je savais que c’était possiblement un triangle amoureux mais on m’avait signalé que monsieur Calado était possiblement mort par arme blanche , arme piquante et tranchante. I. Yes, as for the case of Miss Dammier, I was informed that this was probably the result of a love triangle but Mr. Calado was... died from an edged weapon injury. This was not a verbatim translation but conveyed the essence of the expert’s knowledge of the situation.

His report was to the same effect. ” 103 A. Donc, finalement, il y avait également outre les dix (10) plaies que je viens de décrire , il y avait onze (11) plaies au niveau des mains. I. So finally, in addition to the ten (10) wounds just described , there were ten (10) more wounds... The mistake in the number of wounds was corrected by the questions that followed. 104 R. Est-ce qu’on peut préciser ce qu’on entend par... bien ce qu’on veut dire par pertinent?

Est-ce que c’est... est ce qu’on entend que le cinquième ongle qu'il soit court qui est pertinent, ou que je dise que les autres ongles sont longs que ce soit pertinent? Q. Exactly. I. Can we be more specific about it please? What do you mean relevant, what was relevant, that the fifth finger had a longer fingernail or that the four first ones had short nails , what was relevant? The translation was inaccurate but the attorney rephrased the question in order for the witness to explain why the state of the victim’s nails was relevant. Original question or answer

Interpretation Comment

105 R. C’est que en fait en pathologie judiciaire on va chercher la marque sur le corps, pas le grain de poudre lui-même , et quand les grains de poudre, qui sont chauds, sortent du canon, viennent percuter la peau, ça donne un petit... des petites marques rouges, on appelle ça un tatouage de poudre, c’est l’expression qu’on utilise. I.

Yes, well in forensic pathology we do look for the actual grains of propellant, we’re looking for markings on the skin and when the grains of propellant are exiting the barrel of the gun, they’re burning, they’re hot, and they will burn creating a reddish puncture mark that we call them tattoo, that’s the expression we use in forensic pathology. The translation was not perfect but the essence of the testimony was further explained in witness’ next answers. 106 R.

Et c’est l’analyse en balistique qui aurait dû me confirmer l’hypothèse mais la balisticien a pas retrouvé de grains de poudre dans les cheveux donc c’est pour ça qu’on peut pas confirmer que c’est un tatouage de poudre effectivement I. And ballistics should have confirmed the presence of grains of propellant powder in the hair but they didn't so that’s why we have no scientific concluding evidence of close range shooting. Given the context, the essence of the answer as translated can be considered accurate. 107 R.

Mais généralement, donc on recherche pas... un coup qu’on a vu cette constatation-là, on ne le recherche pas systématiquement sur toutes les plaies, puis on note pas la plaie sur laquelle on l’a retrouvée non plus. I. And once we found one with a squared off end we don’t look for that feature necessarily on every... in every wound, and I cannot tell you exactly which one that was squared off . This was not an exact translation but the error has no real impact. 108 Q.

I was asking you do you also as an expert at the lab use standard... when you say left or right or how do you proceed to characterize and describe every cut that you see? R. Bien c’est en fonction de le vêtement comment on le porte, là, tout simplement. Ça fait que si j’ai le manteau sur mon dos, donc ce sera à ma gauche, à ce moment-là, que j’ai des dommages, que j'observe. I. Alors, au laboratoire, dans votre laboratoire, est-ce que vous utilisez aussi la position anatomique, comment déterminez-vous la gauche de la droite, dans vos procédures? I. From the perspective of the wearer of the garment.

So if I’m wearing the coat, my left. The translation was not complete, but the question put forth by the attorney aimed to establish which were the right and the left side for the purpose of understanding the report and the testimony. The translation gave the answer to this question. Original question or answer

Interpretation Comment

109 Q. So the damages you observed them with your own eyes? R. Au départ c’est toujours à l’oeil nu pour cibler les perforations et ensuite je fais la caractérisation au microscope des bordures pour voir s’il s’agit de coupures, de déchirures, ou d’autres dommages, comme des bris de couture, là, dépendant des zones. I. Vous avez aussi fait l’examen des dommages avec vos... à l’oeil nu ? I. Ialways start with a visual examination to locate the damages, then for the characterisation of the damages I use a microscope to examine the edge and determine if it’s a cut, a tear, or broken stitches.

Considering the context surrounding the question and the answer, there was no ambiguity. 110 R. Donc B, un deuxième dommage, avant gauche, j’ai évalué à un-tiers (1/3) du bas, coupure deux point cinq centimètres (2.5cm), perforation complète, bordure irrégulière. Coupure à partir du rebord de la patte de boutonnage, donc la coupure n’est pas continue avec la boutonnière et il est possible qu’il s’agisse d’un découpage. Je parle dans les premiers soins quand on intervient, ils ont tendance à utiliser des ciseaux et des fois à endommager l’item vestimentaire. I.

So the second damage was B in yellow, front left, I assess the cut to be one-third (1/3) from the bottom, it’s a cut two point five centimeters (2.5cm) long, again a through and through perforation. The edges of the cut are irregular in shape, it was a cut from the edge of the button... the button tab, and maybe this was cut with scissors. First responders, paramedics, when performing manoeuvres on a victim will use scissors sometimes to cut open a garment, maybe this was done, maybe this was cut from the bottom tab into the garment .

Although the interpreter seems to have added to the answer, the witness repeated this element in his next answer. 111 R. Oui, pour moi c’est une coupure puis c’est quand même une coupure avec... c'est du cuir donc c’est quand même plus difficile à découper, ça fait qu’on peut penser que c’est davantage une coupure qui a été... qui pouvait quand même demander de la force puis un découpage ce serait plus difficile. I. Yes, to me it’s a cut and in the case of leather, well leather was harder to cut through.

You may think that this was performed... that this required some amount of force to do so it could be more likely with the sharp implement than scissors . The interpreter added information that was not in the witness’s answer. Taking the previous answers into account, the additional information was accurate. 112 R. Comme le dommage est continu, l’égratignure versus le centre et l’autre

partie de l’égratignure, ça semble être un coup tout simplement, là, en une fois puis que la

partie du centre c’est tout simplement que l’outil est entré un peu plus là dans le textile. I. This seems to be a single continuous damage, the initial scratching of the leather, the open cut and then the scratch, it goes on for ten centimeters (10cm), it's a single slashing motion seems to be the cause of this damage. The interpreter added information to the answer. However, the witness had been referring to his report and the 10 cm scratch in his previous answers Original question or answer

Interpretation Comment

113 R. Ce que je veux mentionner, la

partie centrale, le cuir complètement coupé, mais c’est pas une perforation qui va jusqu’à l’intérieur, c’est seulement le dessus de la poche . I. So what I’m trying to describe here was that the middle of the cut, the middle portion of the cut, the leather was cut but does not cut through the coat, only the leather part was open over thatlength . The witness was testifying on his report. The essence of the answer namely, that the leather was cut but that the slash did not go through the coat, was translated. 114 R.

Et de chaque côté de cette ouverture, il y a une égratignure du cuir, le cuir est marqué, d’un côté je mentionne quatre centimètres (4cm) de longueur , et du second dix centimètres (10cm) de longueur, là, la marque, l’égratignure sur le cuir. I. So on both sides, on either side of this open cut, on the leather there was a scratch, the leather was superficially cut five centimeters (5cm) on one side and then scratched for ten centimeters (10cm) on the other side of the opening. This was an obvious mistake. The witness was testifying on his report and the 4 cm was mentioned in a previous answer. 115 R.

Bien elle n’est pas droite, donc probablement qu'il peut avoir un pli lors du dommage, de la coupure, ou un outil qui est entré plus en angle, puis ça me donnait pas un dommage qui était parfaitement droit , donc j'ai spécifié, à ce moment- là, que c’était non linéaire. I. Not straight, maybe that the fabric of the leather was folded on that part of the coat when the sharp object entered, or maybe the sharp object cut at an angle, one of the two, that’s what I mean by not linear. The essence of the answer was translated. 116 R.

Puis il y a toujours un vêtement... la personne peut être en position couchée et moi je vais juste vous dire le dommage est observé horizontal au niveau de la poche, parce que ça c’est ce que j’ai observé, mais de la manière que c’est fait, tantôt je vous ai décrit un geste qui pouvait vous l’expliquer I. That’s correct, but the person may have been lying down and the cut was horizontal at the pocket, that’s all I know. I gave an example of a... some... a motion earlier that may be the case. Part of the answer was not translated. However, the witness was testifying with his report.

The item of clothing was clearly visible in the picture in front of him and he answered previous questions on the same subject, so there was no ambiguity. 117 R. Oui, c’est un document que j’ai produit le quatorze (14) mars dernier , sur des tirs que j’ai effectués avec l’arme à feu qui m’avait été soumis dans le dossier , des tests pour déterminer une certaine distance de tir. I. Yes, I created this document on March fourteenth (14th) . These are two documents... test fires I made with a firearm that was submitted to me in order to establish references for close range shooting , or shooting distance.

The date appeared on the document the witness was referring to. 118 Q. From the original report to the English translated report, I understand that in this plastic container there were fragments from several projectiles? I. Alors, il y a une différence de l’original du rapport à sa traduction anglaise, dans l'original français je comprends que vous parlez de fragments de plusieurs projectiles? The witness was comparing both versions of the report. The fact that the fragments were in a plastic container was mentioned in his previous answer. Original question or answer

Interpretation Comment

119 R. Non.

Donc, la dernière... bien cette pièce-là, la M97545, un morceau d’os, donc lorsque les pathologistes nous envoient soit des morceaux, des fragments d’os, ou des plaies, ils nous envoient toujours un contrôle, donc une pièce, ou un fragment d’os, ou un morceau de peau, qu'il sait qui a pas contaminé par un tir d’arme à feu, donc si jamais cette... la première pièce demande des expertises plus poussées pour... au département de chimie, bien cette deuxième pièce- là sert de contrôle comme de... comme on pourrait dire un blanc, donc on sait qu’il n’y a pas de métaux lourds qui ont contaminé la pièce, donc notre peau ou notre morceau d’os.

I. So, yes, the last item was M97545. When the pathologist sends us bone fragment, or a sample from the wound, they also send a reference sample, another bone fragment, or a piece of skin that they know was not contaminated by any heavy metal. If our expertise or examination was positive and needs deeper examination in chemistry let's say, we can forward the item to another lab knowing that it has not been contaminated by any metal. Although the translation was not complete, the essence of the answer was translated: the bone fragment was a reference sample. 120 R. Oui.

Selon la pièce M80599, donc il s’agissait d’un fusil tronçonné au canon et à la crosse, le mode qu’on appelle ceux à canon basculant, donc c’est pour l’ouverture le canon bascule vers l’avant. Il s’agissait d’une marque CIL, modèle 402, de calibre 12, possédant le numéro de série 267325. Et le reste dans mon rapport c’est des longueurs qu’on prend pour une classification légale de l’arme. I. Yes, M80599 was a sawed off shotgun. it was sawed off both at the barrel and the stock. It’s a break barrel action. The... there was a... the missing forend also to the sawed off shotgun.

The make was CIL, the model 402, it’s a 12-gauge, serial number 267325. The rest of the description are measurements we take for legal classification of the weapon. The interpreter seems to have added to the answer. The The witness was testifying on his report and the question of the missing forend was later discussed at length. 121 R. Donc, après... vu que la chambre ici elle est exposée, donc on peut prendre notre cartouche de calibre 12 pour pouvoir l’insérer à l’intérieur, et on fait juste relever le canon pour fermer le mécanisme. I.

And then once the barrel was broke, you can insert, the chamber was open and you can insert a shell, or cartridge, and then you close the barrel back and it’s ready to fire . The interpreter added to the answer. The witness was testifying with the firearm in hand. In the question following this answer the attorney mentioned: “When the shooter was ready to fire” 122 R.

Donc, si on utilise nos deux mains mais vraiment collées vers l’arrière, c’est sûr les bras sont plus stables donc le tir va être plus... l’arme va être plus tendance à aller vers le haut, mais c’est sûr qu'il va avoir un mouvement... un petit mouvement de recul mais souvent compensé, là, avec la force et le poids du tireur. I. So if you firmly hold the weapon using both hands and straight arms , the recoil will push the weapon back up more than straight, a straight recoil . The attorney intervened to ask that the interpreter complete the answer. Original question or answer

Interpretation Comment

123 R. Je le sais pas par coeur, je peux regarder, parce que j’ai imprimé sur cette fiche-là, mais le fabricant pour ce modèle-là peut, pour différentes raisons, avoir des longueurs différentes, là. C’est sûr que... c’est en pouces donc il peut y avoir vingt-huit (28), trente pouces (30"), trente-deux pouces (32"), donc à l’origine pour moi il n’y a rien qui m’indique quelle était la longueur, là, originale de cette arme à feu, là. Donc, je pourrais dire des longueurs usuelles qu’on rencontre pour ce modèle-là mais quelle longueur était vraiment cette arme à feu- là, je peux pas le dire. I.

Well, I don’t know by heart. I can check the data sheet for this weapon, I have the data sheet, but you have to keep in mind that the manufacturer of shotguns manufactured them in different lengths. In inches you have twenty-eight inches (28") barrel, or a thirty inch (30") barrel, a thirty-two inch (32") barrel, so I could tell you about the common length of the barrel for this weapon but there’s no way for me to tell you what was the original length of this particular one. Placed in context, the answer was clear. The witness had been testifying on that specific make of firearm. 124 R.

Donc ceci est une photo qui vient du TRAF donc c’est des photos modèles, typiques que la GRC prend pour nous aider à identifier les armes à feu. Donc si on réfère à notre pièce, si je la mets du même bord, donc... […] I. So this was a picture from the RCMP data bank. The judge interrupted the translation but it was clear that the witness was referring to a picture provided by the RCMP’s databank and not to the firearm found at the crime scene. 125 R.

Donc, comme j’expliquais tout à l’heure avec la photo, le fût de ce... d'un fusil d’une arme longue sert à... au tireur, encore une fois pour un droitier pour sa main gauche pour agripper l’arme, pour la tenir bien en main , puisque sinon le tireur serait obligé d’agripper directement le canon, donc avec les tirs le canon d’arme à feu ça... les tirs d’arme à feu produisent de la chaleur donc le canon serait peut- être probablement trop chaud pour le tireur, et pour le tireur ça lui fait une meilleure adhérence pour tenir l’arme à feu fermement dans ses mains. I.

Yes, I explained from the picture earlier the forestock was used for the shooter to hold the weapon, the forestock on a shotgun or any long weapon was used for that purpose. It allows a tighter grip on the weapon for one thing, another thing, firin

[…]