The applicant brought a certiorari application to quash his committal for trial on charges of an indecent act and sexual assault.
He argued the preliminary inquiry judge lost jurisdiction by failing to recognize an absence of evidence regarding subjective intent for the indecent act, and by improperly relying on a video statement and insufficient identification evidence for the sexual assault.
The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding no jurisdictional error.
The court held there was sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact could infer intent, and that the preliminary inquiry judge's decision on the adoption of the video statement was an evidentiary ruling not subject to judicial review.