Kenneth D. Madsen

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery and possession of stolen goods, arguing that the trial judge erred in relying on the doctrine of recent possession and in applying the test for determining guilt based solely on circumstantial evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that both grounds were without merit.

The appellant was convicted of committing an indecent act in a public place after neighbours observed him masturbating in his illuminated living room through an uncovered window.

The trial judge found he had converted his living room into a public place.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal, holding that a private living room is not a 'public place' within the meaning of the Criminal Code.

The Court concluded that 'access' to a public place requires physical access, not merely visual access from the outside.