R. v. Dirie, 2013 ONCA 261

ENDORSEMENT

1We are not persuaded that the trial judge made any error in admitting the evidence of Officer Smissen. He detailed in his reasons on the voir dire the reason why his evidence would be admitted while that of P.C. Taylor would not.

2P.C. Smissen had had dealings with the appellant on the night of his arrest. He took photos of the appellant. He paid attention to his features at the time and it was that earlier acquaintance with the appellant that enabled him to later identify him on the store video taken two hours prior to the robbery.

3While the prior acquaintance with the appellant was not lengthy, it was in our view, sufficient. The duration of that acquaintance would go to weight and not admissibility. As the trial judge noted, his prior acquaintance was at a time very close to both events as recorded on the video.

4As to the photos of the accused, when we consider the trial judge’s clear instruction on the dangers of identification evidence, there was no unfairness to the accused. As to the inconsistencies in the officers’ evidence they are, in our view, not material. With the number of officers involved in the pursuit of suspected robbers, it would be unusual indeed if there weren’t minor inconsistencies and, in any event, these were matters for the jury’s consideration.

5The appeal is dismissed.