During a jury trial for homicide-related offences, the accused sought a ruling preventing the Crown from arguing that marks on the deceased’s clothing were footwear impressions attributable to the accused.
The forensic investigator described several impressions on the clothing but did not identify them as footwear impressions and could not match them to the footwear of either accused.
The court held that the Crown’s proposed inference lacked the necessary foundational evidence and would amount to impermissible speculation.
Applying principles governing circumstantial evidence and inference‑drawing, the court concluded that the primary fact that the impressions were caused by footwear had not been established.
Crown counsel was therefore prohibited from inviting the jury to conclude that the impressions were footwear impressions or attributable to the accused.
