Crown wraps case in South Delta fentanyl trial

After five days of witness testimony in New Westminster Supreme Court, the Crown has wrapped its case in a South Delta fentanyl trial.

On Monday afternoon Crown prosecutor Adrienne Switzer rested the Crown’s case against Daniel Chun Chesshire, who is facing one count of trafficking in fentanyl. Chesshire entered a guilty plea to one count of trafficking in cocaine last Monday.

The court heard previously that in the early hours on Sept. 1, 2016, within a 20-minute span, police received reports of overdoses from three separate locations in South Delta involving nine young adults. In each case, the victims reported respiratory problems, including one person in full cardiac arrest. Delta firefighters and paramedics used Narcan (Naloxone) on six of those who were suffering overdoses. All were treated in hospital.

Before opening his case Monday, however, defence attorney Garry MacDonald made an application to the court with the 12-member jury being excused for the afternoon.

“Before mounting a proper defence in this matter, I require particulars, better particulars on the indictment to give the accused an exact and reasonable information in order to mount a proper defence and a fair trial,” MacDonald told Justice Nathan Smith. “The indictment says cocaine trafficking and fentanyl trafficking in Ladner on Sept. 1, but it doesn’t say to with and I’m wondering what case I have to make? Who did he sell cocaine too, when did he sell cocaine to that person? It’s like having an assault indictment with not whom you hit and when you hit them or where you hit them. I don’t know who he is accused of selling cocaine too or what time. When this all happened within minutes, the timing would be helpful and who did he sell fentanyl too and unless I know that I can’t mount a proper defence.”

MacDonald suggested that short of a mistrial, the remedy is to particularize the indictments so he knows what the Crown is talking about in count one and count two on the indictments.

Switzer said she needed time to review and the court adjourned for 40 minutes.

“In this particular instance it is a very narrow period of time that the offence is alleged to have taken place and there were multiple transactions in this particular instance,” Switzer told the court after the adjournment. “The Crown is not required by virtue of having laid for this time frame a single count to prove each and every transaction, so the difficulty with having a Crown particularize those instances is that it unduly fetters the Crown’s hands.”

Switzer said there is the ability for MacDonald to make an application to essentially divide the count into two or more counts.

“If somehow my friend’s defence requires that this be set up to apply to the transactions I would suggest that is the appropriate remedy in the circumstance is the count be divided and that is an available option,” she said.

MacDonald countered that he didn’t know why Crown was fighting him on this request.

“The time it took to argue this Crown could have provided me this information,” he said. “My friend thinks that this is a huge burden to do three counts. The indictment is to provide a proper legal description of the offence, which this did, but the factual acts of the accused, is what I’m looking for. I wait until the Crown’s evidence is finished. My friend says it fetters the Crown, but I’ve been cooperated with every aspect of this trial with the Crown in admitting testimony and expert witness testimony that could have taken days and days. We are asking that the transactions be identified so the accused can adequately prepare a defence.

“They can amend the indictment. It’s my fault for waiting so long, so I’ll be stuck with it, but they can amend the indictment and the jury can rule on all the counts or on just one of the counts.”

Smith said he had never seen a trafficking indictment, which says the accused on such and such a date trafficked in such and such drugs by selling it to Mr. X – it is usually worded the way it is here.

“The information may be legally sufficient, but it is inadequate for the accused to proper prepare his defence and assure a fair trial,” MacDonald said. “This is the only fair way to divide the counts or amend the information.”

After hearing from both sides, Smith said he was not totally concerned with the cocaine count as they would deal with that at a later time.

“My concern is what is going to the jury on count two [fentanyl],” said Smith. “It appears to me that whatever particularization could have been ordered prior to trial, we are now in a spot where the Crown has led evidence of two specific transactions which deals with and the evidence appears to involve fentanyl. As I understand the law, because those two transactions are alleged to have occurred so close together in time, the Crown can prove either of them, so I don’t see an uncertainty of the case that the defence has to meet.”

The trial will now continue Tuesday morning with the jury on hand, with MacDonald making his opening statement followed by Chesshire taking the stand in his own defence.