On the night of Dec. 10, 2005, Roy Buyck cut a corner - a seemingly harmless thing to do when driving home late at night in a small community like Mayo, but it turned into a showdown with a police officer that Buyck will likely never forget.

Buyck was heading home from a friend's house when he cut the corner and was spotted by Const. Rollie Smith, who was doing check stops at the time, Yukon Supreme Court Justice Scott Brooker heard earlier this year in Mayo. The officer put on his flashers and Buyck immediately pulled over.

Smith walked over to the driver-side window, and when Buyck rolled it down, the officer said he smelled marijuana smoke.

When asked if he had any pot on him, Buyck said no. The smell, he insisted, was left over from earlier that night, when some friends had been toking up and had blown smoke on him.

Smith went around to the other side of the truck, shone his flashlight in the passenger side window and saw what appeared to be a the butt end of a marijuana joint in the ashtray.

It was not in fact a roach, Buyck told the court when he testified in his own defence, but the butt of a hand-rolled cigarette.

He testified he even held it up to the officer and said, "It's a rollie."

At that point, Smith returned to his vehicle for a moment to turn on his microphone, part of an audio-video recording system mounted on his cruiser.

Smith then went back to Buyck's truck and told him he was under arrest.

"Why are you hassling me?" Buyck asked.

Smith said he was arresting Buyck for driving under the influence (based on the smell of smoke) and for drug possession (the roach).

Initially Buyck was co-operative, Smith said during the trial, and got out of the truck, still asking why he was being hassled.

At this point, Buyck's and Smith's versions of events begin to differ widely.

Buyck said when he stepped out of the truck, Smith grabbed his arm and tried to twist it behind his back. Buyck wiggled free and called out for his sister, who lived across the street from where he and Smith were standing.

When he did that, Buyck said, the officer pulled out a can of pepper spray and "maced me."

Buyck said he then grabbed a shovel from the bed of the truck and held it up in front of his face to protect himself. Then he was "pile-drived" by the officer, Buyck testified, and in the process of being flipped over lost his glasses, shoe and jacket.

Then the officer went for his gun, Buyck testified, so he jumped in his truck and drove off.

He was not angry, Buyck said, just scared.

But Smith told the court Buyck went straight for the shovel after breaking free of the officer's attempt to put him in handcuffs.

It wasn't until Buyck was brandishing the shovel "like a baseball bat" that the officer pulled out his pepper spray. Buyck swung and Smith sprayed. Neither man met his mark, so Smith ran at Buyck, knocking him over and causing his shoe and glasses to come off.

Smith said Buyck then stood up, threw off his jacket, picked up the shovel again and started calling for his sister.

Smith testified that he yelled "Back off, Sir!" a number of times, but Buyck kept coming toward him, so he reached for his gun.

He agreed that was when Buyck jumped in his truck and left the scene.

Some hours later, Buyck arrived at the police station to turn himself in.

He had no criminal record and was not known to police.

This was the evidence judge Scott Brooker was faced with when he heard the case in Mayo in January. He also had an audio recording of the exchange, although not a video, because the camera was pointing away from the two men.

Buyck's brother-in-law, who lived across the street from where the two men were standing, also testified. He saw what he described as a scuffle, he told the court, but didn't see Buyck swing the shovel or Smith pull his pepper spray.

With these four bodies of evidence, the judge said he had to answer two questions: One, was the arrest lawful; and two, did Buyck assault Smith?

Brooker found that the arrest was lawful, even though Buyck showed no signs of being intoxicated; his eyes were open and clear, his speech was not slurred and he was in no way acting impaired. But the smell of pot smoke was enough, the judge found, especially with what appeared to be a roach in the ashtray.

He called Buyck's excuse that his friends had been smoking around him "rather lame."

As for deciding on the assault, the judge wrote in his decision: "It is regrettable that Cst. Smith failed to either focus the camera in his police car to where he and the accused were standing, or to conduct his discussions with the accused in front of the police car where the camera was pointing."

However, Brooker wrote, "the evidence from the audio tape is very helpful in resolving the contradictory evidence" because on it one can hear that Buyck's voice is angry and that Smith repeats "stand back" and "back off" several times.

"Their commands are consistent with the constable's version of events and inconsistent with that of the accused's," Brooker found.

So Buyck is guilty of assault, although he never actually hit Smith; and of escaping arrest, which he basically admitted to doing because he was afraid of getting shot.

And all that for a cut corner.