The accused was charged with trafficking heroin and possession of proceeds of crime after a police surveillance operation.
The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including intercepted phone calls using coded language between a known buyer and an unknown female, and surveillance observations of a brief meeting between the buyer and the accused in a vehicle.
The court applied the test for circumstantial evidence, finding that the cumulative effect of the evidence excluded any other reasonable alternative to guilt.
The accused was found guilty on both charges.
