The two accused were charged with multiple firearm and assault offences following a home invasion where the complainant was shot in the neck.
The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, DNA, and gunshot residue, to identify the accused as two of the three perpetrators.
The court dismissed a lost evidence application regarding unseized video surveillance.
Ultimately, the court found one accused guilty as a party to the offences based on DNA and circumstantial evidence connecting him to the scene.
However, the court acquitted the other accused, finding that the circumstantial evidence raised a reasonable doubt about his presence during the shooting.
