The appellant appealed his convictions for eleven charges arising from an armed robbery of a cryptocurrency exchange business.
He argued the trial judge erred in assessing circumstantial evidence and failed to consider reasonable inferences inconsistent with guilt.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the Villaroman principles and reasonably concluded that the appellant's participation in the robbery was the only plausible inference based on the totality of the evidence, including DNA on clothing used in the robbery.
