R. v. Felix Date:, 2014 BCPC 224

Citation: R. v. Felix Date: 20140717 2014 BCPC 0224 File No: 80149-2C Registry: Abbotsford IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. EDWARD GARY FELIX RULING ON VOIR DIRE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE G. BROWN Counsel for the Crown: C. Lawlor Counsel for the Accused: M. Schwartz Place of Hearing: Abbotsford , B.C. Date of Hearing: June 26, July 14, 17, 2014 Date of Ruling: July 17,2014 INTRODUCTION: [ 1 ] THE COURT : This is my ruling on a second voir dire in the trial of R. v. Edward Gary Felix , file 80149-2-C, concerning the

issue of voluntariness. Mr. Felix faces a robbery charge, a resisting peace officer charge, and a possession for the purpose of trafficking charge. These events were alleged to have occurred in Abbotsford on November 20th, 2013, and the Crown has proceeded by indictment. [ 2 ] At trial, a voir dire was held concerning the admissibility of the following two statements given by Mr. Felix on November 21st, 2013: 1. An audio and video recorded statement in an Abbotsford Police Department interview room, the transcript of which is marked Exhibit C in the voir dire; the interview was conducted by Cst. Janela. 2.

A subsequent discussion with Cst. Janela and another police officer downstairs in the parking bay area of the Abbotsford Police Department which was not recorded but which was summarized in a redacted Occurrence Report marked Exhibit E in the voir dire. [ 3 ] The police officers maintain that the interviews of Mr. Felix were conducted primarily to deal with safety concerns raised by Mr. Felix' then counsel, including a request that he not be transferred to the North Fraser remand facility. [ 4 ] While I have not heard all the evidence on the trial proper, I can safely say Mr.

Felix' statements do not constitute a full confession but he does make certain admissions. For example, at pages 6 and 7 of the first statement Mr. Felix states that the "shit" (presumably the cocaine) found on him was not his, and the police seizure of the drugs left him in a very "fucked" position. At page 10 of the same statement Mr. Felix was hoping to give the drugs back but he realized that was no longer possible. Mr. Felix also indicated there was a cash reward to locate and obtain the drugs and he was concerned for his own safety and the safety of family members.

ISSUES: [ 5 ] The issue on this voir dire is whether or not the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Felix' two statements were voluntary. The first focus is on whether or not there were improper inducements such that his statements were not voluntary; the second focus is on the second statement and the fact that it was not audio or video recorded and there were no verbatim notes of the interview. BACKGROUND: [ 6 ] Sgt. Senft first gave evidence in the voluntariness voir dire that his duties on November 20th, 2013 were to process Mr.

Felix in the cellblock of the Abbotsford Police Department and to ensure Mr. Felix had access to counsel. Sgt. Senft never told Mr. Felix things would go better for him if he gave a statement or worse for him if he did not. [ 7 ] At around 8:30 p.m. that evening, Sgt. Senft received a call from Mr. Felix' lawyer, Angela Rinaldis, and a transcript of that call was marked Exhibit D in the voir dire. Ms. Rinaldis made a request that Mr. Felix not go to North Fraser Pre-Trial due to significant safety concerns. She indicated there were individuals at North Fraser who were of concern but she had no names. Sgt.

Senft indicated communications of the safety concern would be made to Sgt. McInnes who was in charge of the in-custodies, as well as to the sheriffs and Crown. The communications apparently were made. [ 8 ] Sgt. McInnes testified that he did receive a call from Sgt. Senft as to concerns for Mr. Felix' safety at North Fraser Pre-Trial. Sgt. McInnes' role was to otherwise ensure that proper arrest procedures were carried out for Mr. Felix. Sgt. McInnes was also a supervisor of a part of the police investigation.

He said a statement from the accused would be "nice to have" but it was not required for the investigation. However, due to the safety concerns raised, he did direct Cst. Janela and Cst. Frendo to speak to Mr. Felix. [ 9 ] There is a police obligation to protect persons in custody. Sgt. McInnes did say in cross-examination that this was the first time in 18 years he had to deal with a safety request coming from defence counsel. [ 10 ] Cst. Frendo testified that on November 20th, 2013 he was asked to monitor an interview of Mr. Felix conducted by Cst. Janela. Cst.

Frendo confirmed that the first audio and video recorded statement was accurate. Cst. Frendo had no concerns about Mr. Felix' physical condition. He did ask Mr. Felix to lower a blanket so his head could be seen. Cst. Frendo denied making any inducements; he simply needed more specific information to fulfil the safety request. [ 11 ] The video of the first interview of Mr. Felix was played in court. Mr. Felix was able to drink from a juice box and his handcuffs were undone. He had a blanket wrapped around him. During the first interview, Mr. Felix was told that he was being recorded. Mr.

Felix admitted that he was not offered any hope of advantage or fear of prejudice should he speak or refuse to speak at page 3 of the transcript. He was reminded that anything talked about could be given as evidence. [ 12 ] At page 6 of the transcript of the first interview, the safety request of defence counsel was discussed. Mr. Felix said his lawyer had to be there in person for the conversation "you may think we're gonna have". Cst. Janela did say he needed an explanation about the safety concern. At the bottom of that page 6 Mr.

Felix says, "Like how you guys, ah, took me down like that, I wasn't aware that you guys were officers in any way, shape or form, and ah, yeah, you kinda left me in a very fucked position and, yeah, my family too, like…" [ 13 ] Cst. Janela presses for more details, and Mr. Felix states that the cocaine in his possession was not his. Cst. Janela indicated he needed more details about what Mr. Felix thinks will happen and by whom. Reasons are required to facilitate a request about a certain remand facility. At page 9 of the statement, Mr.

Felix indicates that money is being exchanged for information that can lead up to some bad things happening to him and his family. This information came from third parties. Mr. Felix was hoping to give the drugs back but he realized that was not going to happen. There was mention of a botched 9-1-1 call. [ 14 ] Cst. Janela questioned at page 11 of the transcript as to how the safety concern for Mr. Felix and his family played in this scenario. Mr .Felix referred to a cash reward for return of property, i.e. the product he had. These people want to set an example. Mr.

Felix went on to say that these people would know he would be going to North Fraser.

[15] At page 14 of the transcript, Cst. Janela did seek more specifics as he wanted a more "compelling story for my boss". Mr. Felixwould not mention names. At page 15 of the transcript Mr. Felix expresses his concern for his family. After asking where Mr. Felix'family lives and who they are, Cst. Janela said that, "If you want our help then you're going to have to share some stuff with us, right?" Mr. Felix goes on to discuss the events leading up to his arrest. He says he did not know that the guys were cops and there were nomarked cars. Mr. Felix later requested the police speak to his wife. Ultimately, Mr.

Felix agrees that there are some matters he wishes todiscuss downstairs where there was no audio or video recording. [16] Following the playing of the video of Mr. Felix' first statement, Cst. Frendo testified further about his duty to warn certainpersons. He needed to establish who was at risk, where they lived and who were the possible assailants. Cst. Frendo said that a secondunrecorded interview of Mr. Felix occurred in the police garage bay. He and Cst. Janela were attempting to get details about who was atrisk. Very little detail was provided by Mr.

Felix, except for the names of certain family members and limited information about wherethey could be found. Cst. Frendo estimated that he spent one hour with Mr. Felix and Cst. Janela in the garage bay area. Cst. Frendolater said it was 45 minutes because fingerprints were also taken. The interview was not recorded and the conversation was casual. Mr.Felix never disclosed who would put him or his family at risk. Again, Cst. Frendo denied that any inducements were made. [17] Based on the information received, Cst. Frendo did notify Mr. Felix' former spouse and son, a daughter and his father.

Cst.Frendo denied that he was playing off a safety concern so as to get details about the drug charge. Information about the second interviewmay have been put in a privatized file due to the sensitive information about the duty to warn. Cst. Frendo did not have access to thatprivatized file. He did not recall a discussion of dollar amounts in the second interview, and he did not recall Mr. Felix explaining howhe acquired the cocaine. [18] Cst. Janela was the final witness in the voluntariness voir dire and he confirmed that Sgt. McInnes requested that he speak toMr. Felix about the safety concerns.

These concerns were raised by his lawyer. Prior to being made aware of these concerns, Cst. Janelahad no intention to take a statement from Mr. Felix. Cst. Janela had no concern about Mr. Felix' sobriety, although he noticed that Mr.Felix was tired. [19] Cst. Janela never told Mr. Felix that things would go better if he talked or worse if he did not talk. Cst. Janela felt that Mr. Felixwas not very forthcoming about specifics of the safety concerns. Cst. Janela agreed to having a further discussion with Mr. Felix whichwas more private and not recorded, especially since names may be disclosed.

The conversation downstairs in the bay area was morecasual, and Cst. Janela felt that he did not learn a whole lot more during that second statement. Cst. Janela said the second off-recordinterview was only five or ten minutes. The conversation was circular and no specific answers were given, for the most part. Mr. Felixdid talk about obtaining cocaine three days prior to being arrested. [20] Like Cst. Frendo, Cst. Janela felt this was primarily a duty-to-warn scenario. Cst. Janela generated an Occurrence Report whichwas kept in a privatized file.

This report was prepared on November 22, 2013, a day later, based on Cst. Janela's recollection of thesecond interview, some information from the recorded interview, and some source information which was redacted. The OccurrenceReport was really to document the duty to warn. [21] Cst. Janela gave evidence about the follow-up on the duty to warn Mr. Felix' family members. Mr. Felix ended up going toNorth Fraser and he was visited there by the officers. In cross, Cst. Janela said he was conducting the interviews of Mr. Felix under theduty to warn. He was not there to obtain evidence, but he did not know what Mr.

Felix would say. THE LAW RESPECTING VOLUNTARINESS: [22] I am simply going to set out some general principles concerning voluntariness. 1. The onus is on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an accused's statement is voluntary. 2. The test for determining voluntariness and whether an accused's s. 7 right to silence was respected are functionally equivalent. (SeeR. v. Singh 2007 SCC 48 , 2007 SCJ 48 at para 25) 3. Cases such as Singh recognize the importance of police interrogation in the investigation of crime (see para 29).

An individual's rightto remain silent does not mean that he has the right not to be spoken to by the authorities. 4. One of the main purposes for the test of voluntariness is to ensure statements are reliable. Other values inherent in the test forvoluntariness are respect for an individual's freedom of will, the need for law enforcement officers to obey the law, and overall fairnessof the criminal justice system. 5. The police caution to an arrestee that he is not obliged to say anything, and that what he does say may be given in evidence, is acomponent of the test for voluntariness. (See Singh para 31) 6.

The case of R. v. Oickle 2000 SCC 38 , 2000 SCJ 38 sets out the components of the test for voluntariness, including threatsor promises, atmosphere of oppression, operating mind and police trickery. I will address the law on threats or promises separately asthat is the most contentious issue here. I will briefly discuss the other components now. (

a) Oppression: When circumstances are oppressive, the accused may confess purely out of a desire to escape his circumstances. Factors that may contribute to an atmosphere of oppression include deprivation of food, clothing, water, sleep or medical attention,denying access to counsel, and aggressively intimidating questioning for a prolonged period. The failure of an interviewer toacknowledge repeated requests to end the interview or consult with counsel may not be oppressive. (See R. v. Baidwan No. 2 March 11,2002 Vancouver CC0026788 BCSC) (

b) Operating mind: An analogy is drawn between the test for fitness to stand trial and the test for an operating mind (See R. v. Whittle (SCC), 1994 SCJ 69). Of course, s. 2 of the Criminal Code defines when someone is unfit to stand trial.

(

c) Police trickery: The courts must maintain the integrity of the justice system, but it is recognized that sometimes police, of necessity,resort to tricks or other forms of deceit. What should be repressed vigorously is conduct on the part of the police which shocks thecommunity. (See Oickle para 67) 7. All of the various sub-tests for voluntaries should be considered not in isolation but together. 8. When an accused has consulted with counsel and states he does not wish to talk to the police, there is no duty on the police to ceaseinterviewing him.

In fact, when an accused says he does not want to make a statement, this is some evidence he understands his s. 7right to silence (See R. v. Wood 1994 NSCA 239 , 1994 NSJ 542 CA). In some circumstances the evidence will support afinding that continued questioning by the police in the face of an accused's repeated assertions of the right to silence deny the accused ameaningful choice whether to speak or remain silent. (See Singh, para. 22) 9. The courts have interpreted the s. 10(

b) Charter right to counsel as being a subsidiary right of s. 7 which incorporates the right tosilence. The main function of the right to counsel regarding the issue of voluntariness is to ensure that a detainee is advised of the rightto remain silent. (See R. v. Sinclair 2010 SCC 35 para. 24). Again, police persuasion short of denying the suspect the right to choose ordepriving him of an operating mind does not breach the right to silence. Nothing prohibits the police from questioning the accused in theabsence of counsel after the accused has retained counsel. (See R. v. Herbert (SCC), 1990 SCJ 64, para. 73) 10.

There is not a continuing obligation on the police to advise an arrestee of his right to counsel after he has exercised that right. (See R.v. Sinclair 2010 SCC 35 para. 22) 11. There is an important balance in societal and individual rights when interviewing an accused. The police must provide an arresteewith a reasonable opportunity to retain and instruct counsel, but once that duty is fulfilled, the primary role of the police is to investigatecrime (See R. v. Ackerman 2001 BCJ 1363 CA, para. 25) 12.

Police are not required to end an interview simply because the accused asks to speak to counsel again. (The leading case on thisissue is R. v. Wood, above) 13. While it would be improper for police to denigrate counsel or counsel's legal advice, they may comment on it and appeal to theaccused's conscience. (See R. v. Ekman 2000 BCCA 414 CanLII) THE LAW ON THREATS, PROMISES OR INDUCEMENTS: [23] I have boiled down the main principles as follows: 1. A statement will be inadmissible if it is a result of fear of prejudice or hope of advantage.

A hope of advantage may include theprospect of leniency from the courts. (See Oickle, para. 49) 2. Interviewers can usually make moral or spiritual inducements because the benefit offered is not in the control of the police officer. (See Oickle, para. 56) 3. The more judicially challenging cases involve subtle, veiled threats that can be used against suspects. For example, the phrase, "Itwould be better to tell," may be considered a threat leading to exclusion of the statement. It depends if the circumstances are such thatthose words imply dire consequences from a refusal to talk.

The trial judge must examine the entire context of the confession and askwhether there is a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary. I am paraphrasing paragraphs 53 and 54 from Oickle here. 4. The Oickle case, paragraph 55, cites Freedman, CJM, when discussing these subtle threats. Interestingly, it is acknowledged that anexperienced and conscientious officer will shun words such as "better tell us everything" like the plague. However, these words are notalways fatal to admissibility; the key is whether these words induce the accused to speak.

If an accused would have confessed in anyevent, then it is still voluntary. 5. An important consideration in cases of threats or promises is whether a quid pro quo was offered. For example, "If you confessyou'll get a lighter sentence." The case of R. v. Spencer 2007 SCC 11 , 2007 SCJ 11 expands on this concept at paragraph 19. Iparaphrase that passage which adopts passages from Oickle. Courts must remember that police may often offer some kind ofinducement to a suspect to obtain a confession. In most cases, the police have to somehow convince the suspect that it is in their bestinterests to confess.

This becomes improper only when the inducements, whether standing alone or in combination with other factors,are strong enough to raise a reasonable doubt about whether the will of the subject has been overborne. It is important to bear in mindthat "overborne" in this context means that an accused would not otherwise have given a statement but was persuaded to do so to avoid athreatened pain or achieved promised gain. (See Spencer, para. 32) 6. As set out in paragraph 51 of Oickle, threats or promises need not be aimed at the suspect for them to have a coercive affect.

R. v.Jackson (BC CA), 1977 34 CCC (2d) 35 BCCA discusses third-party inducements in detail. For a promised benefit toa person other than the accused to vitiate a confession, the benefit must be of such a nature that when considered in light of therelationship between the person and the accused and all the surrounding circumstances, it would tend to induce the accused to make anuntrue statement. 7. A number of cases such as R. v.

Siniarski 1968 SJ No. 209, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, suggest where the evidence clearlyindicates that the motivation for the statement came from within the accused himself and not from anyone in authority, the statementcannot be considered involuntary. However, the case of R. v. Pangman 2000 Carswell Man. 28 makes it clear the court should not, inthe absence of evidence, speculate as to motive. That case also emphasizes the need to examine the closeness of the relationship betweenthe accused and the third party.

THE LAW AS TO RECORDED STATEMENTS OF THE ACCUSED: 1. As outlined in R. v. Moore-McFarlane (ON CA), 2001 Carswell Ont. 4242, the Crown bears the onus ofestablishing a sufficient record of the interaction between the suspect and the police. Cases such as R. v. Folder 2000 Carswell B.C.3284, make it clear that it is of the utmost importance to keep a complete record of all questions and answers, and this is to resist thetemptation to reduce to writing only that part which inculpates the accused. 2. At paragraph 46 of Oickle, the Supreme Court of Canada explains why videotaping is important.

Notes alone cannot reflect the toneof what was said, or any body language. That said, non-recorded interrogations are not inherently suspect. Cases such as R. v. Groat2006 BCCA 27 , 2006 BCJ No. 109 say that the absence of more copious notes is not necessarily fatal to admissibility. Also,the fact that a witness is unable to relate the entire conversation with the accused does not, per se, render the statement involuntary. (SeeR. v. Arkell 1980 54 CC (2nd) 266 BCCA) WAS THE FIRST RECORDED STATEMENT OF MR. FELIX VOLUNTARY: [24] To begin with, there is no issue about the first statement being fully recorded.

The Exhibit C transcript, together with theaudio/video recording, reflects everything that occurred during that portion of the interview. As well, I am satisfied that Mr. Felix wasread his Charter rights and he exercised the opportunity to obtain legal advice. Furthermore, Mr. Felix was informed that the statementwas being recorded, and he was reminded that anything talked about could be given as evidence early in the interview. Mr.

Felix evenacknowledged that he had not, to that point, been offered any hope of advantage or fear of prejudice should he speak or refuse to speak. [25] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Felix had an operating mind, he was acutely aware of his legal advice toremain silent, but he was balancing that advice against the need to have some discussion, however limited, about the safety concerns tohimself and his family. Mr. Felix was sober, he did not appear confused, but he was tired. [26] As to the matter of inducements and any related oppression or police trickery, it is necessary to put Mr.

Felix' first interview incontext. It was Mr. Felix' own counsel who first raised a safety concern by calling Sgt. Senft. This was a very unique situation for thepolice, as confirmed by Sgt. McInnes. I find that the police did not have sufficient information from Mr. Felix' lawyer to simply act onthe safety concern. They did not know which family members were at risk, specifically why there was a risk, and who was creating arisk. The police duty to warn necessitated them getting more information.

Indeed, it is not until the conclusion of the second interviewthat the police had the specifics necessary to contact family members. [27] The decision to interview Mr. Felix was entirely appropriate in the circumstances. During the interview, Mr. Felix made it clearhe was in a "fucked position", and even by his limited admissions it was asserted that he had drugs which belonged to someone else andharm could come to him or his family. This was a legitimate safety concern on the face of it. I acknowledge that the taking of astatement from Mr.

Felix may further the investigation into the offence, but that was a secondary consideration here. At page 6 of thetranscript, Cst. Janela raises the matter of Mr. Felix' lawyer requesting that he not go to a certain remand facility. That is the primaryfocus and the police need details as to the safety concern. [28] When examining the context of the recorded interview, I must also look at the position of the accused, Mr. Felix. Mr. Felixwas a person who appeared to be experienced with the criminal justice system.

He knew of his right to silence, and his overall responseto police inquiries was circular and cryptic. Although Mr. Felix was tired, he was relatively calm considering his circumstances. Atpage 14 of the transcript, Mr. Felix responds to Cst. Janela's request for a more compelling story by saying, "Well, my lawyer told menot to discuss anything with you guys unless it's a safety concern and…and the safety concern, like I'm, I don't wanna mention people'snames or anything like that, right?" This is a man who understands his rights and the system.

Although he is stressed about hissituation, he in no way appears to have his will overborne. [29] I also find that Mr. Felix is not improperly induced by questioning to make admissions. For example, at page 6, line 40, Mr.Felix describes the way he was taken down and that he was not aware "you guys" were officers. This is in response to Cst. Janela simplytalking about Mr. Felix' safety. Cst. Janela then says he can't say he understands what is being said, and Mr. Felix talks about "the shit"(being the drugs) not being his, and so on. Cst.

Janela is not specifically eliciting information about the offence; he is focused on thesafety concern. I see no evidence of Mr. Felix' will being overborne with this mode of questioning. [30] It is true that Cst. Janela says he needs a more compelling story for his boss. However, Cst. Janela has earlier explained at page7 that he needs details because remand institutions will not simply cater to an accused's request without clear information of a safetyconcern. Cst. Janela has a "theory" about the safety concern, but he has no details as to how certain persons are at risk and who iscausing the risk.

As the interview proceeds Cst. Janela hears Mr. Felix himself is at risk because drugs in his possession but notbelonging to him have now been seized. However, Cst. Janela still does not have all the names of others at risk, or ideally, the names ofthose who would cause the risk. I see no police trickery or aggressive tactics wherein the police are vigorously questioning Mr. Felixabout details of the offence in the guise of a safety concern. [31] This is a peculiar case to be raising the issue of third-party inducements. It is true that Mr.

Felix is concerned for his family,but he is the one who raises that concern. The source of Mr. Felix' fear is not the police but others who may be very upset their drugshave been appropriated. I also note that none of Mr. Felix' family members are implicated in the offence, so this case is distinguishablefrom cases such as R. v. Kiloh 2003 BCSC 209 where the third party was a girlfriend who was a co-accused. In the case at bar, no one isoffering to legally assist Mr. Felix' family. This is a safety concern. Moreover, I see no evidence of a quid pro quo such that if Mr.

Felixconfessed, only then would the police take the necessary steps to ensure the safety of Mr. Felix and his family. This is a duty-to-warnsituation, and the police are attempting to ascertain details of a safety concern first raised by the accused's lawyer. [32] During the recorded statement, Mr. Felix does say on several occasions that he will not talk further without a lawyer present. Inmy view, these statements establish his clear understanding of the right to silence.

The police are not required to terminate the interview. [33] In conclusion, I find that the police made no improper inducements during the first recorded interview. I am satisfied beyond areasonable doubt that the first interview was voluntary. As an aside, I see problems with defence counsel's suggestion that the police

ought to have obtained an unwarned statement from Mr. Felix about the safety concerns. An unwarned statement from an accused at any juncture of a police investigation can be problematic. I also do not see how Mr. Felix could be given confidential informant status on these facts. WAS THE SECOND UNRECORDED STATEMENT OF MR. FELIX VOLUNTARY? [ 34 ] The main issue here is the lack of a fully recorded statement. The officers' discussions with Mr. Felix in the bay area are not recorded, and the only document I have is the Occurrence Report made a day later. It contains some statements from Mr. Felix in

summary form. I also have the viva voce evidence of the two officers. [ 35 ] I wish to say at the outset that I in no way blame the police for the manner in which the second interview was conducted. Mr. Felix agreed that the discussion would be off record because he was going to give particulars such as family contacts. Cst. Janela intended that the second interview be captured in a privatized file because it contained sensitive information.

I also agree that much of the content in the second interview appears consistent with the first interview; however, some new information was provided. [ 36 ] Nevertheless, I am not satisfied that I have a sufficient record of the second interview upon which I can evaluate the interaction between the accused and the police. Accordingly, I have a reasonable doubt as to the voluntariness of the second statement. [ 37 ] My concern about the sufficiency of the record is as follows: 1.

It is understandable that the second interview is not audio or video recorded, but no notes were even taken and there were no time recordings of any sort. Consequently, I do not know how Mr. Felix' statements arose as I have no record of the questions posed to him. Cst. Janela may have only put in the Occurrence Report what he thought was pertinent. Simply put, I have no way of putting Mr. Felix' admissions in the bay area into context. 2. The Occurrence Report prepared by Cst. Janela is actually a conglomeration from three sources: the second bay area interview, the first interview, and third-party sources. Cst.

Janela testified as to what Mr. Felix said in the bay, but the Occurrence Report is nevertheless a synthesis of information with no attempt to be a verbatim account. This

summary was also prepared one day later and not contemporaneously. 3. The evidence of Cst. Janela and Cst. Frendo differs markedly as to the length of the second interview. Cst. Frendo says it took at least 45 minutes, whereas Cst. Janela says it took five to ten minutes. Cst.

Frendo's recall is poor because he did not have access to the privatized file, but this discrepancy raises a reasonable doubt as to the sufficiency and accuracy of the record. [ 38 ] In conclusion, I have reasonable doubt as to the voluntariness of the second statement because I do not have a sufficient record to engage in the voluntariness analysis. FINAL RULING: [ 39 ] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the audio and video recorded statement of Mr. Felix taken November 21st, 2013 is voluntary and admissible.

I have a reasonable doubt as to the voluntariness of the second non-recorded statement in the bay area due to the insufficiency of the record, and it is not admissible. G. BROWN Provincial Court Judge