The accused was charged with robbery following a home invasion where three individuals stole electronics and a wallet.
The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically a single partial fingerprint found on a solarium door frame that matched the accused.
None of the victims or co-accused could identify the accused.
Applying the principles of circumstantial evidence, the court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused left the fingerprint during the robbery, as there were other plausible explanations for its presence.
The accused was found not guilty.
