Vancouver Criminal Lawyer: Meghan Forhan
The Facts: Client charged with slashing her husband’s tires and uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm to him after finding out husband had cheated on her [client also threatened brother in law]. Client provided a statement to police during interrogation admitting some portions of the offence. Ms. Forhan challenged the admissibility of the client’s confession on the basis that the Crown Prosecutor failed to prove the confession was voluntary due to gaps in the police evidence. Ms. Forhan also made a No Evidence motion during trial on the charge of Mischief related to the slashing of the husband’s tires.
Result: Court held the confession was not voluntary and excluded it from evidence. The No Evidence Motion was also successful on the basis the Crown failed to call any evidence pertaining to the actus reus of the Mischief offence during trial. After the confession was ruled inadmissible and the Mischief charge was dropped, the client took the stand to testify. The judge accepted her evidence that her “threats” to her husband and brother in law were said in the heat of the moment without the intention to instill fear or be taken seriously.
Client found not guilty on all charges.