The Court held that an electronic record of interview conducted with a 71-year-old accused who claimed an Alzheimer's diagnosis, was on medication including tramadol, and suffered hypotension was admissible as voluntary, where the accused demonstrated capacity to understand questions, formulate responses, and selectively invoke his right to silence during the interview. The Court found that police were entitled to continue questioning after the accused invoked the right to silence to ascertain whether the invocation applied to all matters or only some, and that the combination of age, health conditions, and the historical nature of the questioning did not render the EROI involuntary or warrant discretionary exclusion on grounds of unfairness, public policy, or prejudicial effect outweighing probative value. Evidence that the accused may have fabricated his dementia diagnosis by instructing others how to fool a doctor was relevant to the voluntariness assessment.
The full text is available to signed-in members.