The appellant appealed a conviction for possession of child pornography found on a shared home computer, arguing that the trial judge failed to explain why he accepted the estranged spouse’s evidence and rejected the appellant’s denial.
The court held that, in a case turning on credibility and conflicting evidence about who was responsible for the material, the reasons did not adequately reconcile significant contradictions or explain why no reasonable doubt remained.
The court also identified material misapprehensions of the forensic and testimonial evidence.
Applying the functional approach to sufficiency of reasons, the court concluded that meaningful appellate review was foreclosed and the verdict was unsafe.
