Legal information capsules| Criminal law - Driving a vehicle while impaired |
|
The appellant was convicted of driving while impaired and with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit. At trial, the appellant said she had not impaired. It argues that the trial is not sufficiently motivated in that it does not answer the essential question of the dispute or the credibility of witnesses.
The Superior Court ruled that nothing in the trial does detect that could undermine its credibility. His words are clear and respond to all questions, both in examination-examination against that. It is clear that the police version was preferred to that of the appellant, and the only explanation is that the appellant's testimony was contradicted by the police, what constitutes an error of law because, by choosing between two versions, the judge imposed a burden of proof to the defence. J.E. 2011-1915 |