Ms. Gzik

The accused, Louis Rebelo, brought a motion for a directed verdict on a charge of first degree murder.

The Crown alleged that the accused aided and abetted the shooter by arranging for the weapon to be brought to the scene and distracting the victim.

The court applied the test for a directed verdict, assessing whether there was any evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could return a verdict of guilty.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including surveillance videos, phone records, and post-offence conduct, could reasonably support an inference of guilt.

The motion for a directed verdict was dismissed.

During a joint trial for first degree murder, one of the accused brought two evidentiary applications.

The first application sought to exclude evidence of his spouse's conviction for accessory after the fact to murder, arguing it lacked probative value and was highly prejudicial.

The court granted this application, finding the conviction's probative value regarding the spouse's credibility was substantially outweighed by the overwhelming prejudice it would cause to a co-accused.

The second application was a Corbett application to exclude the accused's prior criminal record from cross-examination if he chose to testify.

The court partially granted this application, excluding the accused's youth record and one adult firearms conviction to prevent undue prejudice, but permitting cross-examination on the remainder of his extensive adult record as it demonstrated a continuing disregard for the law relevant to his credibility.

Mid-trial ruling in a first degree murder prosecution concerning the admissibility of a police-prepared composite surveillance video compiled from approximately 84 hours of footage from multiple locations.

The court held the composite itself was admissible because it reproduced otherwise admissible raw videos without alteration and provided a useful chronology of events.

Applying the law governing videotape evidence, demonstrative evidence, and expert opinion, the court excluded circles, subtitles, commentary, and business labels as hearsay-laden and unfairly prejudicial.

The court admitted the running time clock evidence, but only with modifications to reflect a two-minute margin of error and to remove potentially misleading inserts and seconds.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, brought pre-trial applications to sit at counsel table, to have leg shackles removed, and to have hot meals provided by counsel during the trial.

The court dismissed the application to sit at counsel table, finding that security concerns regarding two of the accused necessitated their placement in the dock, and that treating the co-accused differently could cause prejudice.

The court ordered that the accused wear minimally intrusive leg belt restraints rather than handcuffs or leg irons.

The request for hot meals provided by counsel was denied due to security concerns, but the court ordered the custodial authorities to provide two sandwiches and a beverage for lunch.