Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

At about 9:30 a.m. on May 4, 2000, the Respondent arrived at the Vanderhoof R.C.M.P detachment. He repeatedly requested that the R.C.M.P. send a car to the Erhorn Ranch. The Respondent did mechanical work for Mr. Erhorn, the owner, and lived in a cabin on the ranch. The Respondent would not explain why a car should be sent to the ranch. Several R.C.M.P. members were dispatched to the ranch where they discovered the victims. Two victims had already died from their injuries and a third died from his injuries approximately three weeks later. The three victims all died from axe wounds to the head.

Police testified that the Respondent was asked several times why a car should be sent to the ranch and that he responded “just do it” but would not provide any further explanation. The Respondent was asked if an ambulance would be needed and he stated ‘Maybe’. The Respondent testified that he might have told the police to lock him up until a police car was sent to the ranch but he did not say ‘arrest me’ or ‘put me in jail’. During cross-examination, the Respondent said that after the police asked him what happened, he had responded “How long does it take to get a lawyer?” and that the police gave him a number to call right then. The Respondent went to a room, made several telephone calls and told police that he had left a message on a machine. The police asked if he wanted to tell them what was going on and he asked if a car had gotten to the ranch yet. When the police stated that it had not, he told them “I’ll wait”. At approximately 10 a.m. Corporal Curle heard from an officer at the ranch that a dead man had been found. At 10:06 a.m. Corporal Curle detained the Respondent for the investigation of a sudden death and read him his Charter rights, including his right to remain silent. After telling the Respondent that he was not obliged to say anything, he was asked whether he wanted to tell them what happened at the ranch. The Respondent stated that he did not wish to give a statement. At 4:33 p.m, the Respondent was arrested for the murder of two victims and attempted murder of the third victim.

In cross-examination, the Respondent was asked why he did not tell the police why a police car should be sent out to the ranch. He stated that he ‘messed up’ and had felt intimidated at the police station, he was in shock and had panicked. The Respondent testified that when he was detained, his reaction was that he should get a lawyer. Defence counsel objected to this line of questioning, arguing that it might require the Respondent to reveal legal advice he was given and to explain why he exercised his right to silence. The trial judge allowed the cross-examination. The Respondent was convicted of three counts of second degree murder. The Respondent’s appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.