The accused was charged with the armed robbery of a gas station.
The robber was masked, but left a palm print on the glass counter during the robbery, which was captured on video surveillance.
The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, specifically the palm print matched to the accused and the video showing the robber placing his hand in that exact location.
The court found that the only rational inference from the evidence was that the accused was the masked robber, and found him guilty.
