2 total
The accused was acquitted of drug trafficking because circumstantial evidence did not rule out the co-occupant's sole possession.
The defendant, John Cochrane, was charged with one count of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.
The prosecution's case was primarily circumstantial, focusing on whether Cochrane possessed the heroin (either solely or jointly) and if the purpose of possession was trafficking.
The court applied legal principles regarding the presumption of innocence, burden of proof, proof of possession (including constructive and joint possession), and the assessment of circumstantial evidence.
The court found that while Cochrane had legal control over the apartment where the drugs were found, the evidence did not rule out the reasonable possibility that a co-occupant, Ms. Petersen, was in sole possession of the heroin.
As the prosecution failed to prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant was found not guilty.
Accused acquitted of drug trafficking as defence evidence raised reasonable doubt about knowledge of heroin.
The accused was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after police found 19.07 grams of heroin in a safe inside an apartment he frequented.
The accused testified that he had obtained the safe for a friend to secure her belongings and did not know it contained heroin.
The friend testified and corroborated his account, admitting the heroin was hers.
Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the defence witnesses credible and their explanations reasonable, raising a reasonable doubt as to the accused's knowledge and possession of the drugs.
The accused was found not guilty.
