J. An

The accused were charged with first degree murder arising from a shooting in a Toronto parking lot.

Prior to trial, multiple evidentiary motions were argued concerning hearsay statements of the deceased, references to one accused’s prior incarceration, rap videos and video clips allegedly amounting to confessions or demonstrating intent, gang expert evidence, weapons possession evidence, and alleged post‑offence conduct indicating consciousness of guilt.

The court applied principles governing hearsay admissibility, similar fact and bad character evidence, probative value versus prejudicial effect, expert evidence disclosure under s. 657.3 of the Criminal Code, and the law of post‑offence conduct.

Several items of Crown evidence—including rap videos, gang evidence, prior weapons conviction, and alleged consciousness‑of‑guilt conduct—were excluded due to minimal probative value and high prejudicial impact.

Limited evidence such as certain hearsay statements, a contemporaneous “locked and loaded” remark, and testimony that one accused possessed a revolver shortly before the shooting were admitted.

The accused was charged with firearm and robbery offences following an armed robbery of two victims by multiple perpetrators who fled in a black Jeep.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's DNA found on a handgun and a soda can in the abandoned getaway vehicle, cell tower data, and weak photo lineup identifications.

The court found the identification evidence unreliable and the circumstantial evidence open to inferences consistent with innocence, such as secondary DNA transfer.

Concluding the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt, the court dismissed the charges and acquitted the accused.