The prosecution charged the defendant under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 arising from an alleged roadside deer shooting and related hunting offences.
The court accepted that the defendant and his truck were present in the vicinity based on video evidence and admissions in a cautioned statement, but found the evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he discharged a firearm.
The court identified evidentiary gaps, including the absence of direct observation of any shooting, the lack of ballistic recovery, the existence of another hunter in the area, and reliability concerns arising from informal interpretation during the statement.
Because the discharge allegation was not proven, the derivative counts for careless discharge, discharge from a right of way, and abandoning deer flesh also failed.
The prosecution also conceded there was no evidence to support the hunter-orange count.
