In the textbook “Criminal Law in Canada” by Simon Verdun-Jones, there are various types of significant cases that provide insight towards the actus reus elements of a criminal offence. For example, Codlin’s case conveys that Codlin drank alcohol at a party and decides to go home in his car, but he noticed that he was too drunk to drive so he called a taxi to pick him up (Verdun-Jones, 2014, p. 49). However, Codlin decided to sit in his car while waiting for the taxi and removed his key from the ignition to prevent any car mobility, but a police officer noticed Codlin sitting in his car with 150 milligrams of blood alcohol level so he was charged with being in “care or control” of a vehicle while being “over 80” under section 253(1) of the Criminal
…show more content…
For example, Boudreault was drinking alcohol at a bar and acknowledged that he was too drunk to drive his truck so he decided to ask a friend to call a taxi for him, which is similar to Codlin’s case as he recognized that he was also too drunk to drive his motor vehicle and decided to travel by taxi (R v Boudreault, 2012, para. 18). Both cases signify that the accused persons’ blood alcohol exceeded the legal limit by surpassing 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. Moreover, Boudreault decided to sit in the driver’s seat while intoxicated and wait for the taxi’s arrival as Codlin also decided to sit in the driver’s seat to wait for the taxi (R v Boudreault, 2012, para. 20). There are main differences that underlie in both cases. For example, Boudreault was asleep on the driver’s seat when he was waiting for the taxi and left the truck’s engine running (R v Boudreault, 2012, para. 20). On the other hand, Codlin didn’t fall asleep and he removed the key from the car’s ignition, which promotes a lesser likelihood of harming other property and people (Verdun-Jones, 2014, p. 49). Boudreault was acquitted by the trial judge of the Quebec court because there was no risk towards people or property since the vehicle wasn’t in motion (R v Boudreault, 2012, para. 23). The Boudreault case (2012) remains significant to the Codlin’s case because it has several similarities in terms of the case facts. For example, Codlin’s case also signifies a lesser threat to people or property because the car wasn’t operating and Codin was aware of his surroundings since he wasn’t sleeping (Verdun-Jones, 2014, p.
For example, Boudreault was drinking alcohol at a bar and acknowledged that he was too drunk to drive his truck so he decided to ask a friend to call a taxi for him, which is similar to Codlin’s case as he recognized that he was also too drunk to drive his motor vehicle and decided to travel by taxi (R v Boudreault, 2012, para. 18). Both cases signify that the accused persons’ blood alcohol exceeded the legal limit by surpassing 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. Moreover, Boudreault decided to sit in the driver’s seat while intoxicated and wait for the taxi’s arrival as Codlin also decided to sit in the driver’s seat to wait for the taxi (R v Boudreault, 2012, para. 20). There are main differences that underlie in both cases. For example, Boudreault was asleep on the driver’s seat when he was waiting for the taxi and left the truck’s engine running (R v Boudreault, 2012, para. 20). On the other hand, Codlin didn’t fall asleep and he removed the key from the car’s ignition, which promotes a lesser likelihood of harming other property and people (Verdun-Jones, 2014, p. 49). Boudreault was acquitted by the trial judge of the Quebec court because there was no risk towards people or property since the vehicle wasn’t in motion (R v Boudreault, 2012, para. 23). The Boudreault case (2012) remains significant to the Codlin’s case because it has several similarities in terms of the case facts. For example, Codlin’s case also signifies a lesser threat to people or property because the car wasn’t operating and Codin was aware of his surroundings since he wasn’t sleeping (Verdun-Jones, 2014, p.