Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2014-02-07

Court File No.: Regional Municipality of Durham 998 11 11504

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— and —

Maritol Huggins

Before: Justice J. De Filippis

Heard on: 8, 9, & 10 January 2014

Reasons for Judgment released on: 7 February 2014

Counsel

Mr. G. Raven — counsel for the Crown

Mr. J. Bloomenfeld — counsel for the Defendant

Reasons for Judgment

De Filippis J.:

[1] The defendant is an older student in university. She agreed to be a surety for a man charged with robbery. The bail order required him to be under house arrest unless he was in the company of his mother or the surety. While awaiting trial on the robbery charge, the man sold cocaine to an undercover police officer several times. Three of the transactions happened in a motor vehicle in which the defendant was also present. The Crown charges her with being a party to these offences and joint possession of cocaine later found at her home. She denies knowledge of the defendant's activities. These reasons explain why I find the defendant guilty of trafficking in cocaine and not guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Facts

[2] On 22 March 2011, Cst. Carter, acting in an undercover capacity, made arrangements to purchase 3.5 grams of crack cocaine at the home of "Pete". The cocaine was delivered there by Niga Brown and the transaction was completed. Subsequently, the officer dealt directly with Mr. Brown and they communicated by text messaging. They met two days later at a plaza in Ajax for another cocaine deal. At 8 PM, a Cadillac driven by the defendant arrived at the plaza and stopped. Mr. Brown occupied the front passenger seat. The undercover officer entered and sat in the rear seat. He received a "cube" (7 grams) of crack cocaine from Mr. Brown and paid him $430.00 in cash. The two men then shook hands and the officer left the vehicle. Cst. Carter testified that there was no discussion in the vehicle and the defendant stared out the driver door window during the transaction. In the days that followed, the undercover officer and Mr. Brown agreed to another drug deal to be completed on March 29.

[3] At 7:22 PM the parties met at a parking lot in Whitby. Mr. Brown arrived as a front seat passenger in the same vehicle and it was again driven by the defendant. The officer entered and sat in the rear seat. As previously arranged, the officer purchased one ounce of crack cocaine for $1,500.00. According to Cst. Carter, the defendant looked on as the product and money were exchanged. Before leaving the vehicle, the officer asked to purchase an additional two ounces of cocaine that evening for a customer in Peterborough. Mr. Brown replied that he would look into the matter. The parties continued this discussion by text messaging in the next several hours and eventually agreed to meet for the purchase and sale of three ounces of crack cocaine for $4,500.00.

[4] At 10:41 PM the parties met in the parking lot of a convenience store in Ajax. The defendant arrived in the same vehicle but this time he was the driver and the defendant sat in the front passenger seat. The officer entered and sat in the rear seat. Cst. Carter testified that the defendant watched the transaction and smiled after he handed over the money to Mr. Brown. He left the vehicle and other officers waiting nearby arrested the defendant and Mr. Brown.

[5] Cst. Carter conceded that he never inspected the product while in the motor vehicle; he simply took the bag proffered by Mr. Brown and handed over the money to him. He testified that the first transaction in the car lasted "less than one minute" and the others were "brief".

[6] After the arrests in this case, a search warrant was executed at the defendant's home. The police seized the following items in plain view in the living room; four bags containing crack cocaine in the amount of 28.7 grams, 28.6 grams, 12.1 grams, and 12.8 grams respectively as well as a set of weigh scales. It is not in dispute that this cocaine was possessed "for the purpose of trafficking".

Background on the Defendant

[7] The defendant is a 30 year old single mother of two children (13 and 9 years old). Since arriving in Canada at the age of 15, she has completed college and is currently in her final year at University of Ontario Institute of Technology pursuing a degree in health science. She supports herself, in part, through a part time job at a hair salon and a "party promotion" business. The latter involves renting venues for music and dancing. Tickets are sold online and in person by her attendance at other such events. The defendant met Mr. Brown at one such event in 2010 and their relationship became an intimate one. Mr. Brown sometimes spent days at a time at her home but he resided elsewhere. He initially assisted her in the business by distributing flyers and selling tickets and later began promoting his own parties.

[8] Before the events in question at this trial, Mr. Brown was charged with robbery and released on bail, with the defendant as surety. The terms of release specified that Mr. Brown could not leave his mother's home unless he was in the company of his mother or the defendant. This order was in effect at the time he committed the present offences.

Defendant's Evidence

[9] The defendant testified that on March 24 she was driving her motor vehicle, with Mr. Brown as a passenger, en route to her home when the latter, told her he wanted to meet a person who "knows many people and will sell many tickets". He asked her to stop at a plaza so he could "drop off flyers and tickets". She complied with this request and explained that a man came into her car and quickly left as she looked out the window. The defendant testified that she did not "feel the need to be friendly" with the man because he had entered her car without being introduced and said nothing. She stated that she did not find it odd that no words had been spoken during this brief meeting but later questioned Mr. Brown about his "ill-mannered guest".

[10] According to the defendant, on March 29, Mr. Brown told her he wanted to "drop off flyers and tickets" to the same man. She drove him to a different plaza where a brief meeting occurred in her motor vehicle. The defendant testified she was not paying attention and "didn't see what they were exchanging". Afterwards, she drove to her home and visited a neighbour while the defendant remained in her house with her children. Later that evening, Mr. Brown came to the neighbour's home and asked the defendant to accompany him to another meeting with the same man as he was willing to pick up tickets for another party. This time it would occur at the parking lot of a convenience store. The defendant testified she agreed to do so as she needed to "get snacks for the kids". She arranged for a neighbour to watch her children while she was gone. The defendant stated she was shocked to be arrested after this second meeting of the day.

[11] The defendant testified she has never been involved with drugs and had no knowledge of the cocaine Mr. Brown sold to the undercover officer or that found in her home. She reiterated that she believed Mr. Brown was promoting his business and providing related flyers and tickets to the undercover officer. She said she has also used her motor vehicle for this purpose because the nature of the parties attract untrustworthy people and buyers and sellers of tickets do not always want to reveal where they live. The defendant denied observing drugs in her car at any time and did not smile at the undercover officer when he handed money to Mr. Brown. She explained that she did not hear any conversation between the two men in her car on March 29 as the radio was on and loud. The defendant conceded that Mr. Brown had stayed overnight at her home on several occasions, in violation of the bail order that required him to reside with his mother.

Legal Analysis

[12] The Crown must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt if the defendant is to be found guilty. This means that if the defendant has called evidence, there must be an acquittal: (i) where the testimony is believed, (ii) where the testimony is not believed, but leaves the trier of fact in reasonable doubt, (iii) where testimony is not believed and does not leave a reasonable doubt, but the remaining evidence fails to convince, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty: R v W.D., 63 C.C.C. (3d) 397. The application of this principle does not mean the defendant's evidence is to be viewed in isolation, divorced from the context or other evidence in the case: F v R.D., [2004] O.J. 2086 (O.C.A).

[13] It is not disputed that Mr. Brown sold cocaine to the undercover officer on three occasions in the defendant's car and that she drove the vehicle on two occasions and was a passenger at the final transaction. Moreover, if she knew the meetings were about cocaine, there can be no question she aided Mr. Brown in trafficking because her car was used for this purpose and he could not be in the community unless accompanied by the defendant (or his mother). However, the defendant insists that she did not have such knowledge and believed the meetings were about Mr. Brown's party promotion business.

Defence Submissions

[14] Defence counsel submits that his client has overcome many difficulties to lead a productive life; she has studied and worked hard and is now four months away from earning a university degree. Counsel argues that this is inconsistent with aiding and abetting a crack dealer and suggests there is no reason to reject her testimony that she neither heard nor observed anything about illicit drugs. Moreover, the exchange of drugs and money happened quickly and there is no evidence of financial gain for the defendant. It is submitted that, in these circumstances, it would be unsafe to convict.

Court's Assessment of Credibility

[15] I accept that Cst. Carter truthfully and accurately reported what he observed and heard in the defendant's motor vehicle during the three drug deals. In assessing the situation the officer would be attentive to his own security and looking for evidence. There is no reason to doubt his credibility and reliability. On this basis, the Crown has met its burden of proof. However, this does not end the matter. The defendant must be acquitted if her testimony satisfies me she lacked knowledge of the cocaine deals or raises a reasonable doubt about the issue. I have considered her evidence carefully and cannot accept it.

[16] In rejecting the defendant's evidence I have taken into account the fact that she knowingly allowed Mr. Brown to violate the terms of his release by staying overnight at her home. As such, it may not have troubled her to be the necessary escort for Mr. Brown to engage in more sinister pursuits. In any event, it is difficult to accept that a mature and educated woman could so easily be duped by Mr. Brown into believing that his quick exchanges with a stranger in various parking lots on three occasions had a legitimate business purpose. Moreover, it is inconceivable that the defendant failed to notice that Mr. Brown did not, at these encounters, deliver "flyers" or "tickets". These paper products have nothing in common with rock cocaine. The defendant's answer to these obvious challenges is that she simply did not see or hear what was happening.

[17] It makes no sense at all that the defendant would look away while transactions were conducted with respect to a business in which she was actively involved. It is incredible that she would ignore a person reputed to be able to sell many tickets and thus assist her and Mr. Brown in their party promotion businesses. The fact is that the drugs and money were exchanged by two men seated beside and behind the defendant. She could not fail to see and hear. She had to know the true nature of the transactions. In coming to this conclusion, I am not troubled by the absence of evidence that the defendant personally profited by the drug deals.

Possession for Trafficking

[18] The Crown claims that the evidence proving the defendant is a party to drug trafficking is also compelling evidence that she implicated with respect to the cocaine found in her home. In the circumstances of this case, I disagree. There is no reason to believe the defendant would allow crack cocaine to be in her home in plain view and readily accessible to her children. There can be little doubt that this is Mr. Brown's stash and left there by him after the final deal had been confirmed with the undercover officer. There is no basis to conclude the defendant knew Mr. Brown would leave cocaine at her home rather than keep it in his personal possession.

Verdict

[19] The defendant is guilty of three counts of aiding and abetting another person in trafficking in cocaine.

Released: February 7, 2014

Signed: "Justice De Filippis"