The appellant was convicted of two counts of trafficking cocaine.
The appeal challenged the trial judge's admission and use of audio recordings and transcripts, the expert evidence relating to cocaine, and the conviction on an alternative theory of liability not explicitly advanced by the Crown.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the audio recordings and transcripts, nor in the reliance on expert evidence to link drug lingo to cocaine.
Regarding the alternative theory, the court found no prejudice to the appellant, as the indictment's language covered the "offer to traffic" which was completed on an earlier date than specified for delivery, and this was part of a continuous chain of events.
The appeal was dismissed.
