Evidence ruling to come Monday

Closing arguments were given in a voir dire at Aaron Hotchen’s drug, firearm trial in debate over admissibility of search findings

Closing arguments were presented Friday for the voir dire portion of Aaron Hotchen’s trial on charges of possession for the purposes of trafficking and firearm offences.

A voir dire is a trial within a trial to determine the admissibility of evidence.

In this case, the voir dire concerns the admissibility of the drugs and gun seized by police in their Oct. 22, 2016 raid on a rural residence near Seven Persons Hotchen was staying at.

Defence lawyer Marc Crarer contends police violated Hotchen’s Charter right to not be subject to unreasonable search and seizure.

For a Charter application, the onus is on the defence to prove a violation occurred.

Medicine Hat Police Service Const. Chance Franklin testified Monday that he left the search warrant for the property in his vehicle, which was parked one kilometre away.

Crarer said the issue with the Crown’s position is that it “presumes there was in fact a paper copy of the warrant,” although none of the defence witnesses present on Oct. 22, including the property’s owner, saw one.

Franklin, who obtained the warrant from Judge Gordon Krinke earlier the day of the raid, had confirmed Hotchen asked to see a copy of it, but testified he didn’t think it was a demand.

“An individual asking for a warrant must be taken as a demand,” Crarer said.

Crown prosecutor Jeremy Newton argued Hotchen was the only person in a position to demand a warrant, since it concerned his alleged activities.

“Charter rights are personal,” said Newton.

Police left behind the warrant because they were in a hurry based on the circumstances of their raid, he added.

They waited until Hotchen left his trailer, so he wouldn’t be able to barricade himself inside.

Once they saw Hotchen riding a tractor, they knew it was their time to enter the property, Newton said.

Even if there was a breach, it was minor, given the proximity of the warrant and time constraints, he added.

Although Hotchen may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his trailer, this doesn’t extend to the entire property, which isn’t owned by him, said Newton.

Whether there was a Charter breach depends largely on the credibility of the accused, Newton said, calling Hotchen “a witness whose testimony should be taken with extreme caution.”

Under cross-examination, Hotchen admitted to using meth an hour before police executed their warrant.

The accused conceded meth use can have a negative impact on memory.

Hotchen maintained throughout his testimony he had no knowledge of the drugs located on the property.

However, Newton played some clips from phone conversations Hotchen had in the local remand centre, referring to the drugs as “ours” and a “two-week supply.”

Contrary to his testimony that he repeatedly asked two officers to show him the warrant, the Crown maintains Hotchen asked Franklin only once.

When Franklin allegedly told him it was in the police car, Hotchen asked who signed it and Franklin told him it was Krinke.

“That f---ing guy will sign anything,” Hotchen allegedly said.

Judge Paul Pharo will provide his ruling on the evidence’s admissibility Monday.