Autopsy report ruled inadmissible for careless driving trial

By Delon Shurtz - Lethbridge Herald on August 25, 2022.

LETHBRIDGE HERALDdshurtz@lethbridgeherald.com

The autopsy report of a young Lethbridge boy killed after he was struck by a vehicle more than two years ago will not be entered into evidence during the driver’s trial next week.

Judge Timothy Hironaka ruled Tuesday in Lethbridge provincial court that because the driver, Neil Martin Skjodt, was charged with careless driving and not careless driving causing death, details about the boy’s death will not be admissible at trial. However, Hironaka will allow the medical examiner to testify, as long as he does not discuss the autopsy results or provide medical opinion on the death.

Lethbridge lawyer Greg White had petitioned the judge earlier in the month to not allow the medical examiner to testify, and argued that because death is not an element of the offence of careless driving, any evidence about the death of the boy would be irrelevant to the trial.

Skjodt, 55, was charged after the 10-year-old boy, Charles McIntyre, was struck and killed by a motor vehicle April 13, 2020. A large SUV turning right onto Whoop-Up Drive near Aquitania Boulevard struck two young boys crossing in the crosswalk with their father. The older boy died in the hospital.

Skjodt pleaded not guilty several months later to a single charge of careless driving under the Traffic Safety Act. He was charged under the Act rather than the Criminal Code after investigating officers determined the incident was not a criminal offence. The charge allows for a maximum fine of $2,000 or six months in jail, or both, and possibly licence suspension.

During a hearing Aug. 4, White had hoped the charges against his client would be thrown out after he had also argued his client’s right to a speedy trial had been violated.

A ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2016, known as the Jordan decision, sets the acceptable period of delay at 18 months between the time a charge is laid and the conclusion of trial. That delay is 30 months for superior court trials, and the Crown is responsible to ensure a trial is held before the deadlines.

More than 27 months will have passed by the time Skjodt’s trial concludes. The five-day trial is set to begin Monday.

Hironaka concluded defence is responsible for several months of delay, including the delay caused when the original trial set for last March had to be cancelled so White could attend to a family emergency. The case was also repeatedly adjourned while defence waited for its expert to provide a traffic reconstruction report, which was requested in response to a report prepared by the Crown’s expert.

The judge determined had defence not caused several months of delay, only about 16 months would have passed between the time charges were laid and the trial concluded.

Follow @DShurtzHerald on Twitter