The appellant appealed his convictions relating to a home invasion and an assault.
He argued the trial judge misapprehended identification evidence on the assault count, failed to consider an alternate suspect for the home invasion, and inadequately scrutinized unsavoury witnesses.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, entering an acquittal on the assault count because the trial judge mistakenly believed the identifying witnesses had prior knowledge of the appellant.
The appeal was otherwise dismissed, as the alternate suspect was physically incapable of the crime and the trial judge properly applied the Vetrovec principles.
