During a jury trial for first degree murder, the Crown sought to introduce recognition evidence from five witnesses to identify the accused in surveillance videos.
The witnesses, including a police officer and four security guards, had prior interactions with the accused in the community.
The court applied the test for non-expert opinion evidence of identity, finding that each witness had a sufficient prior acquaintance with the accused and was in a better position than the jury to identify him.
The court rejected arguments that the evidence was overly prejudicial or tainted by the witnesses' knowledge of the investigation.
The Crown's application to adduce the recognition evidence was granted.