Leonardo S. Russomanno

The accused, a vegetable farmer, brought a pre-trial application to exclude evidence of a large marijuana grow operation found on land he rented.

Police had trespassed on the rented land to make initial observations, which were then used to obtain search warrants.

The court found that the initial trespass violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights and that the warrants could not have been issued without the unconstitutionally obtained information.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the police acted in good faith, the breach was minimally intrusive, and the evidence was highly reliable.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder in the death of his wife, who died from severe burn injuries and had suffered extensive prior abuse.

During pre-trial motions, the court ruled on the admissibility of two statements the accused made to police and the admissibility of prior discreditable conduct evidence.

The court found both the December 6 and December 11 statements were voluntary and that the accused's Charter rights were not violated.

The court also ruled that evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct, including evidence that he had shot the victim with a pellet gun 29 times, was highly probative of his animus, motive, and state of mind, and its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The appellant appealed convictions for breaching a recognizance contrary to s. 145 of the Criminal Code, arguing that the identification evidence was unreliable and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The convictions arose after police officers arrested an individual outside an apartment and later discovered he had provided a false identity.

The trial judge relied primarily on the arresting officer’s observations and subsequent recognition of the accused from a photograph, with limited confirmatory evidence from another officer.

On appeal, the court held that the trial judge properly applied the governing principles regarding eyewitness identification and the standard for unreasonable verdicts.

The appellate court concluded that the evidence was reasonably capable of supporting the convictions and that no reversible error occurred.