R. v. Medina, 2010 ONCA 261

ENDORSEMENT

1The appellant appeals against his conviction by Fournier J. of the Ontario Court of Justice for possession of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking on the basis that the verdict is unreasonable.

2The large quantity of marijuana, well over seven kilograms, was found in an apartment rented to a person named “Matt Medina” as sub-tenant. The tenant of the apartment could not identify the appellant as the person to whom he sublet the apartment. Nor could the superintendent of the building identify him as the occupant of the apartment.

3The appellant submits that the verdict is unreasonable. He argues that there was no direct evidence identifying him as the person who sublet the apartment or any direct evidence that he occupied it. Further, the appellant argues that the circumstantial evidence could not place him at the apartment at all and, in any event, within the time frame of the offence.

4The appellant in argument sought to subject every separate item of circumstantial evidence to scrutiny as to whether the appellant’s guilt was the only rational inference that could be drawn from that piece of evidence. The trial judge’s conclusion, quite correctly, was based on the consideration of the entire body of circumstantial evidence that was before him. The circumstantial evidence included the facts that the apartment sublease was in the appellant’s name, that access to the building required the use of Medeco keys, which were turned over to a person who identified himself as the appellant and which could not readily be duplicated, that the appellant’s expired identity documents, including one with his picture, were found in the apartment, that his car was in the apartment’s parking space and was moved during the relevant time frame, and that a key fob that permitted access to his car was found inside the apartment.

5The verdict reached in this case was one that was available to a properly instructed jury acting judicially. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed.