La prise d'un petit échantillon de drogue aux fins d'analyse peut faire la preuve l'entièreté de la même substance retrouvée lors de la transaction criminelle

R v Nyuon, 2014 ABCA 130

Lien vers la décision

[20]            The substance sold to the undercover officer was analysed and the certificate of analysis confirmed that it was cocaine. However, as none of the substance which remained on the table was seized, there was no analysis of it. The appellant says that in the absence of a certificate of analysis, the Crown has not proved that the substance was cocaine. The appellant relies on a passage from this court’s decision in R v Grant, 2001 ABCA 252 where an officer’s description of a substance was found to be insufficient proof. The court warned against the danger of permitting lay identification of illegal substances and stated that such practice should not be encouraged. It further observed that if it were to uphold that course of identification, the certificate of analysis practice would be at risk in the future.

[21]           In our view the fears expressed in Grant are simply not present here. There was an analysis of the substance sold to the undercover officer and it was found to be crack cocaine. It was similar to the routine practice of testing a small sample of a larger amount. In addition the undercover officer testified that the substance he observed on the table appeared to him to be crack cocaine, and that the chip trafficked to him was very similar to those on the table. There was the evidence of known drug users attending the room for short periods of time while the appellant and Santino were in the room. Finally, the expert testified that drugs are often not packaged because users may want different amounts. There was ample evidence on this record to enable the trier of fact to infer that what was left on the table was the same substance. The trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in his conclusion that the substance was cocaine. This ground of appeal is dismissed.