The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.
The Crown's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, primarily the defendant's fingerprints found on drug packaging discovered in a neighbour's yard, and the proximity of the defendant's parents' residence.
The defendant testified, denying knowledge or involvement with the drugs, explaining his fingerprints by routine household activities.
The court found the police investigation to be lacking and, despite suspicion, concluded that the circumstantial evidence did not amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as the defendant's testimony might reasonably be true and other inferences could be drawn from the evidence.
The defendant was found not guilty on both charges.
