The appellant appealed his convictions for multiple offences relating to an armed home invasion robbery.
He argued that the trial judge erred in finding sufficient evidence of identity, misapprehended evidence, and erred in law by reversing the burden of proof.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge reasonably inferred identity from circumstantial evidence, including the doctrine of recent possession, and did not misapprehend material evidence or misapply the W.(D.) framework.
The appeal was dismissed.
