R v Murray

R. v. Murray

[2011] O.J. No. 2875, 2011 ONSC 3735
Ontario Superior Court of Justice — Justice E.J. Koke | June 22, 2011

Background

On November 12, 2008, at 2:18 a.m., police found David Murray's vehicle flipped upside down in a ditch on Highway 144 north of Sudbury. Murray, 56, was hanging from his seatbelt in the driver's seat, with his 90-year-old mother Grace strapped into the passenger seat. Both were injured and had to be extracted by emergency services. Police found multiple empty alcohol containers scattered around the scene — Caesar coolers, beer cans, and a half-empty bottle of Crown Royal whiskey on the dashboard.

Murray was charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm, driving over 80 causing bodily harm, and dangerous driving. Blood samples taken at the hospital showed his blood alcohol concentration was between 240-395 mg/100ml — three to five times the legal limit. Murray's defense? He claimed he consumed massive amounts of alcohol either just before driving or while hanging upside down in the wreckage.

Issues

1. Did Murray's extremely high blood alcohol level cause the accident?
2. Was Murray's claim of post-accident or "bolus" drinking credible?
3. Were the hospital blood test results reliable evidence?

The Post-Accident Drinking Defense

Murray argued that his blood alcohol readings could be explained by either "bolus drinking" (consuming large amounts just before driving) or drinking after the crash while trapped in the vehicle. The expert evidence showed that to achieve his blood alcohol level, Murray would have needed to consume between 7¾ and 13½ bottles of beer or 11¾ ounces of spirits either shortly before the accident or while hanging upside down.

Justice Koke applied the "common sense" test established in cases like R. v. Grosse and R. v. Bulman: normal people don't consume massive amounts of alcohol just before driving, especially with an elderly parent in the car. Even more absurdly, they don't drink substantial quantities while hanging upside down in a crashed vehicle. The court found Murray's blood alcohol readings were not the result of bolus drinking or post-accident consumption.

Hospital Blood Test Evidence

Murray challenged the reliability of the hospital blood tests, arguing the Crown hadn't proven the testing equipment was accurate. Following R. v. Redmond, Justice Koke held that hospital laboratory tests are presumptively reliable when conducted by qualified technicians in facilities designed to serve medical professionals who rely on accurate results for life-and-death decisions. The court found the test results acceptable on the criminal standard of proof.

Key Takeaway

Courts will reject obviously fabricated post-accident drinking defenses that defy common sense and human behavior.

When your blood alcohol is three to five times the legal limit, claiming you drank after the crash requires extraordinary evidence. Judges won't accept explanations that require believing someone consumed massive amounts of alcohol while trapped upside down in a wrecked car.