2 total
Directed verdict granted where Crown evidence could not support robbery or possession convictions.
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.
Police‑obtained statement excluded after Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Crown sought a ruling permitting cross‑examination of an accused using a written statement he had provided to police if he testified at trial.
A voir dire was held to determine whether the statement was voluntary.
The accused alleged the statement was written after an officer suggested he would be in a better position if he provided it and that the officer removed the statement from him despite his attempt to withhold it until speaking with counsel.
Applying the voluntariness principles from R. v. Oickle, the court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was not obtained through an inducement or other circumstances undermining voluntariness.
The Crown’s application to rely on the statement was dismissed.
