The accused was charged with multiple offences, including break and enter, aggravated assault, and robbery with a firearm, following a home invasion where the homeowner was shot.
The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including cell tower data, DNA found on a marijuana roach at the scene, and eyewitness identification.
The court found the eyewitness identification to be general and weakened by the witness's inability to identify the accused in a photo lineup.
Furthermore, the court accepted a plausible alternative theory for the presence of the accused's DNA at the scene.
Concluding that the cumulative circumstantial evidence did not prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt, the court found the accused not guilty.
