Mr.Xavier Cormier is a criminal defense lawyer practising law in Montreal.
Here is a summary of a recent judgment passed by the Court (Mr. Cormier was not involved in this case), proving that sometimes, evidence of impaired faculties due to alcohol consumption may lead to an individual being convicted of one charge but may lead to this individual’s acquittal on another charge.
The defendant was charged with driving a vehicle while his faculties were impaired by alcohol. He was also charged with refusing to provide breathalizer samples. The defendant was returning from a restaurant with his spouse. He was irritated by another driver’s behaviour and decided to follow the person. An altercation ensued. According to the spouse of the other driver, the defendant was drunk, the punches he tried to give were slow and he could barely stand up. The defendant left the scene. A police car began to follow his car. He was driving between 15 km/h and 60 km/h. He didn’t notice the police following him. When he was arrested, he seemed to be unable to find his driver’s license and stared at each document in his wallet for 20 seconds. Once they were at the police station, he became very aggressive once again. The officers judged that his attitude was the equivalent of refusing to submit to a breathalizer test. The defendant never explicitly refused to submit to the breathalizer test. He was convicted of driving while impaired but acquitted of the refusal charge. The issue of determining whether or not a person is impaired by alcohol is a matter of fact, and a regular person can give his or her opinion as to the degree of impairment of another person. The testimony of the spouse of the other driver corroborated all the evidence and proved without a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s faculties were impaired by the effect of alcohol. The defendant’s behaviour was the equivalent of refusing to submit to a breathalizer test. His state of mind caused by consuming alcohol however prevented the Court from concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the required criminal intention to refuse to submit to a breathalizer test.
Each case of impaired driving is different and may or may not entail a specific defense.
