The accused was charged with breaking and entering a dwelling house in Burlington with intent to commit an indictable offence.
The Crown's case relied primarily on eyewitness identification by the homeowner's son, who observed the intruder inside his bedroom and later identified the accused's vehicle.
The defence argued the identification was unreliable, particularly given the witness's observation of an accent that the accused did not possess.
The court found the witness credible and concluded the accused was the intruder, determining that the accused had likely modulated his voice to disguise it.
The presence of power tools in the accused's vehicle corroborated the theft of tools from the property.
