Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2018-02-14 Docket: C63039 Judges: MacPherson, Huscroft and Trotter JJ.A.

Between

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

and

Christopher Goulbourne Appellant

Counsel

Appellant: Christopher Goulbourne, in person Duty Counsel: Howard L. Krongold Respondent: Deborah Calderwood

Heard: February 8, 2018

On appeal from the conviction entered on September 21, 2016 by Justice K. Doorly of the Ontario Court of Justice.

Appeal Book Endorsement

[1] The appellant argues that his conviction for robbery with firearm and disguise with intent were unreasonable.

[2] This was a circumstantial case, and the question was the identity of the robber. The appellant did not testify.

[3] The trial judge gave detailed reasons. She found that a leather jacket and gloves were used in the robbery and abandoned near the scene of the crime. The appellant's DNA was on the jacket but it was not the only DNA. However, the only DNA on the gloves belonged to the appellant. The trial judge also found that the appellant had worn the same jacket approximately one month earlier in a booking video. We are satisfied that the booking video was properly admitted.

[4] In our view, it was open to the trial judge to conclude that there was no other reasonable inference to be drawn on these findings. It cannot be said that the verdict was unreasonable.

[5] The appeal is dismissed.