Howard Krongold

The appellant was convicted of robbery and assault causing bodily harm following a violent attack in a convenience store parking lot.

The sole issue at trial was eyewitness identification.

On appeal, the appellant argued the verdict was unreasonable and the trial judge's reasons were inadequate.

The Court of Appeal held the verdict was not unreasonable, but allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial because the trial judge failed to properly instruct himself and analyze the inherent frailties of the eyewitness identification evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Crown conceded the trial judge erred by relying on hearsay evidence from the appellant's cross-examination of the victim.

The Court of Appeal applied the curative proviso, finding that a conviction was inevitable given the victim's injuries, which clearly indicated the use of a weapon.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed.

However, the court found the 48-month sentence was outside the acceptable range and reduced it to time served, equivalent to 32 months.