The accused brought a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the Crown’s case on charges of robbery and possession of stolen property.
The Crown’s theory was that the accused assisted the robbery by making a telephone call to the robbers and that she constructively possessed property stolen during the robbery that was later found in the home where she lived.
Applying the directed verdict test from Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court conducted a limited weighing of the circumstantial evidence to determine whether a properly instructed jury could reasonably convict.
The court held there was no evidence that the accused made any call or participated in the robbery, and no evidence of knowledge or control over the stolen property sufficient to establish constructive possession.
As the Crown’s theory required impermissible speculation, the motion was granted and verdicts of acquittal were directed.