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.

Criminal law — Evidence — Admissibility — Private communications — Procedure — Jury — Questioning prospective jurors — During pursuit of and struggle with accused, officer was shot and fatally wounded — Communications between accused and family members intercepted at correctional centre — As officer’s death received much media and public attention, accused was entitled to challenge potential jurors for cause — Trial judge ruled that potential jurors would be asked questions that were limited to “yes” or “no” answers — Whether intercepted communications properly admitted at trial — Whether trial judge’s ruling on challenge for cause reasonable.

In the course of an investigation into a report of an intoxicated and possibly suicidal male, a R.C.M.P. officer encountered the accused, Mr. Bulatci, and some companions about to enter a taxi. The officer attempted to arrest Mr. Bulatci. During the course of the officer’s search, Mr. Bulatci, who was in possession of a firearm, ran off and was pursued by the officer. Mr. Bulatci fired two shots at the officer, who continued the pursuit. A struggled ensued and Mr. Bulatci fired two more shots. It was subsequently discovered that the officer had been hit four times, including a fatal wound to the neck. As the officer’s death received a great deal of media and public attention, the trial’s venue was changed and Mr. Bulatci was entitled to challenge potential jurors for cause. The trial judge ruled that potential jurors would be asked five or six questions, which were limited to yes or no answers. At trial, certain communications that Mr. Bulatci had had with members of his family in a secure visiting room at the correctional centre were introduced into evidence. The communications had been intercepted pursuant to an authorization that was obtained prior to Mr. Bulatci’s arrest. Mr. Bulatci testified that he never intended to hit the officer. Mr. Bulatci offered to plead guilty to manslaughter, which the Crown rejected, and the jury convicted him of first degree murder. On appeal, Mr. Bulatci argued that the interceptions of private conversations, which he had had with his family, were not authorized and those conversations ought not to have been admitted into evidence. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.