Richard Mwangi

During a trial for first-degree murder, the Crown brought an application to admit expert evidence regarding street gangs, specifically the rivalry between 'C3' and the 'Scarlettwood Crips'.

The Crown sought to qualify a police detective as an expert to provide context and establish motive for the seemingly random shooting of an unarmed man.

The defence opposed the application, arguing the evidence was highly prejudicial and the officer was not properly qualified.

The court allowed the application, finding the evidence was logically relevant to motive, necessary to assist the jury in understanding the context of the shooting, and that the officer was qualified.

The court ruled that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect, subject to specific exclusions of certain highly prejudicial videos and appropriate jury instructions.

The accused applied to exclude crack cocaine discovered during a pat‑down search conducted after police responded to a report of a man armed with a lead pipe in an apartment building.

Police entered the apartment, detained the occupants for investigative purposes, and conducted safety pat‑down searches, during which an officer felt a hard object in the accused’s pocket that proved to be cocaine.

The accused alleged violations of Charter ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a) and 10(b), including unlawful detention, unlawful entry, and an abusive search.

The court held that the police had a reasonable suspicion justifying investigative detention and safety searches under R. v. Mann, and that the search was minimally intrusive and lawful.

Even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would not have been excluded under s. 24(2) applying the Grant framework.