Alberta
Court of Queen's Bench

ALBERTA - Court of Queen's Bench: R .v. S.M.B. [2005] A.J. No. 1647 ABQB 784

FACTS:  The accused had provided statements to the police, and the Crown sought the admission of these statements in court. The Defence argued that the statements were provided unwillingly and that the police failed to advise the accused of his right to have a lawyer present during the interrogation. Moreover, the accused presented signs of cognitive deficits. Two expert opinions regarding whether the statements had been given voluntarily and whether the accused understood his right to counsel were provided.  The Crown called Dr. Jose Mejia, an expert in child and adolescent forensic psychiatry.  Dr. Mejia advanced that the cognitive deficits observed in S.M.B. were not due to FAS because the accused did not meet the criteria for this disorder. Additionally, Dr. Mejia did not believe that these intellectual deficiencies had interfered with S.M.B.'s comprehension of the interview process.  The Defence called Dr. Robert Sutherland, an expert in neuropsychology who had been conducting research on FAS for over a decade. Dr. Sutherland assessed S.M.B.'s intellectual abilities and, unlike Dr. Mejia, believed that the accused suffered from FAS.  Dr. Sutherland concluded that the accused did not understand his rights or the significance of his waiver. 

HELD:  In accordance with Dr. Sutherland's testimony, the judge declared that the statements made by the accused were inadmissible.