Jeff Carolin

The appellant was convicted of criminal harassment, sexual interference, and sexual assault involving three complainants.

The central issue at trial was the identity of the perpetrator.

The appellant appealed the convictions, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence from three educators who claimed the appellant resembled a police composite sketch, that the jury charge on eyewitness identification was inadequate, and that the verdicts were unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the jury charge failed to highlight specific weaknesses and exculpatory features in the eyewitness evidence.

Furthermore, the Court concluded that the verdicts were unreasonable because the identification evidence was largely generic and contradicted by distinctive features the appellant did not possess.

Acquittals were substituted for all convictions.

The accused was committed for trial on a charge of second degree murder following a preliminary inquiry.

On a certiorari motion, a Superior Court judge quashed the committal and substituted a committal for manslaughter, finding insufficient evidence of the requisite intent for murder.

The Crown appealed the quashing, and the accused appealed, arguing he should have been discharged entirely.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and dismissed the accused's appeal, holding that the Superior Court judge exceeded her jurisdiction on a certiorari application by weighing the evidence and failing to recognize that there was some evidence upon which a reasonable jury could infer the intent for murder.

The committal for second degree murder was restored.