R v Mucpa

canada, canadian, case law, court opinion, canlii, nuca, 2024nuca15, 2024 nuca 15 (canlii), 2024, nuca, 15, (canlii), 11-22-009-cap, 2024, criminal procedure, charter breaches, statements to police, right to counsel under s. 10(b) charter, appellant gave inculpatory statements after police failed to fulfill their prosper obligations, trial judge admitted statements pursuant to s. 24(2) charter, did the trial judge err in admitting statements after finding that the charter breach was not serious and had minimal impact?, ruling affirmed as breach did not render evidence inadmissible under grant, criminal procedure, voir dire, use of criminal record, admissibility of criminal record in voir dire to assess right to counsel and voluntariness of statements, trial judge improperly admitted criminal record, inferring past police explanations of right to remain silent, admission ruled harmless as trial judge relied on direct evidence of voluntariness and comprehension by the appellant, constitution, charter, exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2), statements obtained after s. 10(b) charter breach, test from grant applied, trial judge found breach moderately serious but minimally impacting appellant’s rights, did admission of statements undermine justice’s reputation?, proper balancing of charter interests did not necessitate exclusion, constitution, charter connection analysis, later statements to police, whether appellant’s statements to cst. pigeon were causally or contextually connected to prior s. 10(b) breach, statements made 15 hours later, after consultation with counsel, contextual disconnection from breach found, proper reliance on additional caution by police and appellant’s informed decision to speak, criminal infractions, mens rea, specific intent for second degree murder, appellant’s acts deliberate and purposeful, ability to appreciate consequences despite mental illness and cognitive impairments, did mental health and neurocognitive deficits preclude specific intent?, trial judge properly found lucidity and deliberate intentionality at time of offence, criminal procedure, sentencing, parole ineligibility, trial judge imposed 20, year period treating mental illness as aggravating factor and characterizing offence as “near first, degree murder”, errors in principle found, fit sentence determined at 13 years of parole ineligibility, balancing seriousness of offence, gladue factors, and mitigating elements