In what circumstances will the trial judge rule that a gun found by the police can be adduced in evidence?

British Columbia, Canada


The following excerpt is from R. v. Burlingham, 1993 CanLII 6884 (BC CA):

In view of the trial judge's reference to Wray [see Wray v. The Queen (1973), 1973 CanLII 21 (SCC), 10 C.C.C. (2d) 215, 33 D.L.R. (3d) 750, [1974] S.C.R. 565], it might be thought that he had ruled that the gun, ex. 13, being physical evidence found by the police, could be adduced in evidence. Subsequent proceedings, which will be described in a moment, demonstrate that no such ruling was made at that time. Thus, it is not correct, as counsel for the accused argued, that the trial judge “reversed himself” on this question when he later admitted the gun into evidence.

Other Questions


In what circumstances will a judge in a sexual assault case be found to have objected to the words of the Judge at the trial of the accused? (Ontario, Canada)
In what circumstances will a judge refuse to re-open a trial to hear fresh evidence? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a motion judge assume that no further evidence will be adduced at trial on any issue, including discoverability? (Ontario, Canada)
Is there any case law where the learned trial judge found there was no evidence of intent to defraud? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
What is an obligation of a judge presiding in a criminal jury trial to review and relate the substantial features of the evidence adduced? (Ontario, Canada)
In what circumstances will a trial judge consider corroborating evidence in a sexual assault case? (Ontario, Canada)
In a motion for directed verdict, in what circumstances will the trial judge not have considered the evidence of Timothy? (Manitoba, Canada)
In what circumstances will a summary trial judge be able to resolve issues where there are conflicting evidence? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the effect of the trial judge's disapproval of how the police gathered evidence during the investigation? (Alberta, Canada)
Is a trial judge's failure to give reasons sufficient to determine that the trial judge erred in appreciation of a relevant issue or application of the evidence? (British Columbia, Canada)