Constable John Carrabs

The accused was charged with robbery, using an imitation firearm during the robbery, and possession of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown relied primarily on the testimony of an accomplice who had already pleaded guilty in youth court.

The trial judge found significant inconsistencies between the accomplice’s testimony and that of the complainant, as well as concerns regarding identification evidence and the absence of stolen items in the accused’s residence.

These credibility and evidentiary deficiencies raised reasonable doubt as to the accused’s participation in the alleged robbery and firearm offence.

However, expert evidence and the circumstances of seizure established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed cannabis packaged for trafficking.

During a criminal jury trial for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, the defence objected to the Crown calling a police officer as an expert witness on drug trafficking practices.

Following a voir dire, the court considered the admissibility of the proposed opinion evidence under the framework from Mohan.

The court held the officer was qualified through experience in drug investigations and that his proposed testimony regarding common trafficking indicators—such as multiple cell phones, separation of drugs and cash, and possession of large amounts of currency—was relevant and necessary to assist the jury in assessing the accused’s knowledge of the drugs.

The court limited the scope of the expert evidence, ruling the officer could not opine on whether the accused possessed the drugs for the purpose of trafficking or had knowledge of the cocaine.

The evidence was admitted subject to those restrictions.