The accused was charged with robbery and using an imitation firearm following a jewelry store hold-up by two men.
The Crown's case relied on eyewitness identification from a photo lineup and DNA found on a baseball cap left at the scene, which the Crown alleged was worn by the other perpetrator.
The defence called an alibi witness who testified the accused was with her at the time of the offence.
The court found the alibi evidence, while not fully believed, raised a reasonable doubt.
The court also noted frailties in the eyewitness identification and found the circumstantial DNA evidence insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence.
The accused was acquitted.
