Summary: The Case Of R. V. Wood

In the case of R. v. Wood, 2007 ABQB 503, Susanne Lynn Wood appeals her September 8, 2006, conviction on one count of impaired driving, contrary to s. 253(a) of the Criminal Code, where on September 8 the appeal was quashed, and she was convicted. On May 31, 2004, the witness David Godziuk phoned the Edmonton police of a possible impaired driver, after the Appellant’s vehicle almost hit his vehicle. David Godziuk followed the Appellant’s vehicle, observing consist exceeded speed, suddenly braking, random lane changes, and tailgate others. Constable Smith of the Edmonton police service was dispatched to investigate said driver, as he approached the Appellant’s vehicle he followed her for two blocks observing the vehicle swerve left to right, once Constable Smith turned on his emergency lights the driver abruptly stepped on the breaks and stopped the vehicle (R. v. Wood, 2007). Constable Smith approached the vehicle

v. Wood, 2007). The first issue, was took from the position of the Appellant, as well as the Crown on the DRE and if it should have been heard. The Appellant went to state, the trial judge failed to analyze the admissibility of the DRE evidence in accordance with the tests enunciated in R. v. Mohan, 1994, and the DRE evidence should be excluded (R. v. Wood, 2007). The Crown argues that, even though the trial judge’s Reasons for Judgement did not specifically specify the Mohan analysis, her overall ruling shows she followed the guidelines with Mohan. Furthermore, adding the she considered the DRE protocol, ascertained Sergeant Moschansky’s qualifications, and examined the uses of the evidence (R. v. Wood, 2007). Overall, the Crown states the DRE evidence was in fact properly