Reasons for Judgment
Court File No.: CR-24-90000119
Date: 2025-06-26
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
His Majesty the King – and – Tremar Ellis
Martin Tooke, for the Crown
Alonzo Abbey, for Tremar Ellis
Heard: April 28, 29, 30 and May 1, 2025
Judge: Giuseppe Pinto
Overview
[1] This four-day judge-alone trial determined whether the accused, Tremar Ellis, is guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained from the proceeds of crime.
[2] On June 29, 2022, police executed a Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 search warrant on a bungalow at 73 Third Street in Etobicoke. The warrant did not target Mr. Ellis, who was unknown to police at the time. Rather, it was connected to a break and enter incident and a related search for stolen property. Police found three individuals in the house when they entered: Laura Robinson, the spouse of the owner of the house; Tyler Robinson, son of Ms. Robinson; and Mr. Ellis.
[3] The bungalow had two levels. On the main level there was a living room, kitchen, bathroom, and Ms. Robinson’s bedroom. In the basement, there were two bedrooms and a bathroom. Only one of the basement bedrooms was occupied.
[4] When police went down to the basement, they found Mr. Ellis sleeping in the bedroom. Police woke him up and asked for identification. He indicated that his ID was located in a vehicle parked outside. Police accompanied Mr. Ellis to the vehicle where he retrieved his driver’s license. Police detained Mr. Ellis, Ms. Robinson, and Tyler Robinson on the main floor while they conducted a search of the premises.
[5] Police located two quantities of crack cocaine in the basement bedroom. A smaller amount, 8.47 grams, was located in a twisted grey piece of plastic on a nightstand and a larger quantity, 23.73 grams, was found in the drawer of a wooden dresser. Police also located cash in two areas of the basement: $495 was found on top of a gray dresser located under a television, and $8,030 was found in the same dresser as the larger quantity of crack cocaine.
[6] Police charged Mr. Ellis with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of the proceeds of crime in excess of $5,000.
[7] Four police officers testified for the Crown. Ms. Robinson and Mr. Ellis testified for the Defence.
[8] For the reasons that follow, I find Mr. Ellis not guilty of the charges. I believe Mr. Ellis’ testimony that he visited Tyler Robinson about 36 hours before police executed their search warrant. I accept that Mr. Ellis was having a dispute with his girlfriend and asked Tyler if he could temporarily stay at Tyler’s mother’s home in the basement bedroom. Tyler was staying in the basement bedroom off and on because he was having marital difficulties. After considering all of the evidence including Ms. Robinson’s uncontested testimony that her son Tyler was frequently using cocaine at the time, and the circumstantial evidence at trial, I am left in reasonable doubt about Mr. Ellis’ guilt. I find that there is a reasonable possibility that Tyler Robinson left the cocaine and larger quantity of cash in the bedroom, and that Mr. Ellis had neither knowledge nor control over these items.
Agreed Statement of Facts
[9] The parties entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF). The ASF states that Laura Robinson was the girlfriend of Craig Barton, the owner of 73 Third Street. Police were looking for stolen property and obtained a valid search warrant under the Criminal Code to search the main floor, basement, and “out building” at 73 Third Street. The police seized no DNA or fingerprint evidence. The parties agreed that the total amount of crack cocaine seized, 32.20 grams, was consistent with possession for the purpose of trafficking.
Police Officers’ Testimony
[10] Four police officers who attended the premises testified on behalf of the Crown. These officers were Detective Constable (DC) Steve Stassen, DC Jasbir Mrahar, DC Christopher Ethier, and DC Sasha Sljivo.
[11] On June 29, 2022, police were surveilling the bungalow located at 73 Third Street. At 12:54 p.m., they observed a male arrive on skateboard and enter through a side door to the house. Ten minutes later, police knocked on the side door. The male who had recently arrived by skateboard answered the door and identified himself as Tyler Robinson. Police announced that they had a warrant to search the premises and entered the house. Police next encountered Laura Robinson, Tyler’s mother, and she explained that her boyfriend Craig Barton owned the house and was not home.
[12] DC Stassen stayed on the main level while DCs Ethier and Sljivo went down to the basement. The basement consisted of a bathroom, kitchen, a first bedroom that was not in use, and a second bedroom at the end of a hallway. When police entered the second bedroom, they found Mr. Ellis asleep in his underwear. He was on the left side of the bed. The bedroom contained a bed, two dressers, a TV, and a white nightstand. It also had an adjoining closet with folding doors.
[13] The white nightstand was located to the right of the head of the bed. On the left hand side of the bed, a wooden dresser with a mirror was positioned against the wall at the foot of the bed. On the wall parallel to the foot of the bed there was a grey dresser with a TV above it. The officers testified that the bedroom was messy and clothing, water bottles, personal effects, a gaming system, and other items were strewn about the room.
[14] The officers woke up Mr. Ellis and indicated that they had a search warrant for the premises. Mr. Ellis put on some clothing. DC Ethier could not recall whether Mr. Ellis gathered his clothes from the floor or from a dresser. Mr. Ellis got dressed and was taken upstairs by the officers. Police asked if he had any identification and he indicated that it was in a vehicle outside. An officer accompanied him to the vehicle where he retrieved his driver’s license. The officers testified that Mr. Ellis was very cooperative with them.
[15] Another officer, DC Mrahar, was the designated Scene of Crime Officer (SOCO). He took entry, search, and exit photos of the basement, including the bedroom where the cocaine and cash were found. Photos of the bedroom were entered into evidence.
[16] DC Ethier testified that DC Stassen advised him that the items associated with the B&E had been located and the officers arrested Ms. Robinson. Subsequently, officers released Ms. Robinson on the basis that she agree to certain conditions. Officers initially detained Tyler Robinson but then released him with no charges after finding out that Tyler lived at a different address. Police did not obtain a statement from Tyler.
[17] In addition to the 8.47 grams of cocaine on the nightstand and 23.73 grams in the drawer of a wooden dresser, police found:
- $495 found on top of a gray dresser and $8,030 found in the wooden dresser where the larger amount of crack cocaine was found.
- A digital scale on open display on the wooden dresser. On top of the digital scale was a tray partially covered in a white powdery substance that was not tested.
- Three digital phones. Police determined that only one of the phones belonged to Mr. Ellis.
Defence Testimony
Laura Robinson
[18] Ms. Robinson testified that, as of July 2022, she had been living at 73 Third Street for about a decade. She runs a landscaping business. She has three adult children and Tyler is the middle child. Tyler was 31 years old at the time of the police entry. He was married and had a residence on Gamble Avenue in East York. However, Tyler was experiencing marital difficulties and was bouncing back and forth between his home and his mother’s. Ms. Robinson had also asked Tyler to assist with her landscaping business and in particular, the manual labour. She testified that when police arrived and knocked on the side door on July 29, she was in her office on the main floor and Tyler let the police in.
[19] She testified that Tyler was a cocaine addict and that she had seen him consume cocaine around 15 times. Some of these instances occurred in the shed in the backyard and in her truck when he was at work. Although Ms. Robinson had walked in on Tyler doing a line of cocaine before, she had never seen Tyler with a bag like the one found containing the smaller amount of cocaine.
[20] She identified the gold chain necklace and blue book on the nightstand near the smaller baggie of cocaine as Tyler’s.
[21] Ms. Robinson identified several of Tyler’s items in the drawer of the wooden dresser where the larger quantity of cocaine was found. She also identified a card that she and Tyler had picked out for his daughter’s birthday on June 25. Ms. Robinson explained that she and Tyler had both forgotten to give the card to Tyler’s daughter. She also identified the ultrasound photo as that of Tyler’s daughter and a circular metal frame containing a copy of Tyler’s daughter’s handprint. However, she did not know anything about the large sum of money, around $8,000, found in the drawer.
[22] She identified a “Bass Pro Shops” fishing hat as Tyler’s. Police found the hat on the wooden dresser near the digital scale found in plain view.
[23] Ms. Robinson testified that she had previously seen Mr. Ellis at her house and that he was Tyler’s friend. She also testified that Tyler drank water from water bottles all the time, usually when he was working.
[24] She explained that the bathroom in the basement was being renovated so the first bedroom in the basement was dusty and not in use.
[25] She testified that Tyler came to stay with her at the end of May 2022 and he gave her $500. Previously, Tyler came by and stayed with her on weekends.
[26] She did not know what Tyler and Mr. Ellis did when Mr. Ellis came over to her house. She saw Mr. Ellis maybe once every two weeks in the summer. She had some short, 5-minute conversations with Mr. Ellis. They talked about basketball.
[27] She disagreed that Mr. Ellis could have been living in the basement without her knowledge. She testified that she would have been able to hear either the TV or someone talking, since her bedroom and office were right above the basement bedroom that was in use. Also, she would have been able to distinguish between Tyler and Mr. Ellis’ voice.
[28] She further testified that Tyler got married in April 2021. Three months before the police search, she replaced the lock to the side door with a keyless entry system that required a door code.
Tremar Ellis
[29] Mr. Ellis denied having any knowledge or control of the drugs found in the basement bedroom at 73 Third Street. In July 2022, he was 31 years old. He has no criminal record. He testified that at around 12:00 a.m. on June 28, 2022 he was at his girlfriend’s residence on the Queensway. They had been dating for about three years. COVID-19 was still very prevalent at the time. They got into a serious argument as his girlfriend did not like him going out so much. He found it difficult to constantly be inside. Things came to a head and he felt like they needed to give each other some space. It was around 1 a.m. in the morning and he knew that his friend Tyler Robinson would likely be awake. He telephoned Tyler and explained that he needed a place to crash. Tyler agreed that he could come over. Mr. Ellis gathered up his belongings and put them into two or three garbage bags. His belongings included clothing and some unopened pieces of mail.
[30] He used his girlfriend’s rental car and drove to 73 Third Street. He estimated that he arrived at around 1:45 a.m. On the way there, he telephoned Tyler who subsequently opened the side door of the residence and let Mr. Ellis down to the basement. The first bedroom in the basement was dusty due to recent renovations and not in use. They proceeded to the second bedroom which Tyler was using. Mr. Ellis placed his items at the bottom of a gray dresser. He went to bed roughly between 1:45 and 2:15 a.m. without changing out of his street clothes.
[31] He woke up around midday. He telephoned Tyler and learned that he was in the back yard “chilling.” He changed into some new clothing. In order to do so, he had to take some clothing and mail out of the top of one of the garbage bags and place the items on the gray dresser. He had not received the mail recently. It had moved with him from his mother’s to his girlfriend’s place.
[32] At about 1:30 p.m., he came up from the basement and met Tyler outside in the backyard. Tyler was doing cocaine in the shed and Mr. Ellis remembered seeing a plate with cocaine on it. He knew that Tyler used cocaine but he did not judge him for it. He had seen Tyler use cocaine before in the shed. He did not partake in the cocaine. He and Tyler hung out for a few hours. He then left at about 7 p.m. to meet his girlfriend, who he had been in touch with throughout the day. They went for a walk in the South Etobicoke area. They ate at a Firkin pub and he returned to 73 Third Street at about 12:30 a.m. or 1:00 a.m. on July 29th. He and Tyler discussed the possibility of him living at Ms. Robinson’s place in the other basement bedroom. He went to sleep.
[33] He testified that he was startled when police entered the bedroom on the afternoon of July 29th as he did not hear any noise when police came into the house. Before the police entered, he was awake when Tyler was in the bedroom, but then went back to sleep. He went upstairs with an officer and retrieved his driver’s license from the rental car outside. He was arrested after police found cocaine in the basement bedroom. He was eventually released on conditions after police read him his rights. Police returned his mobile phone to him upon release.
[34] He also testified about the various residences where he stayed during childhood and into his thirties. Throughout the years he kept personal items at his mother’s place. As of June 2022, his mother was living in a one bedroom plus den unit on Silver Maple Court in Brampton. He occasionally stayed at his mother’s place and slept on the couch. He had moved several of his personal belongings from his mother’s place to his girlfriend’s residence on the Queensway.
[35] In cross-examination, he acknowledged that, in addition to the garbage bags he took with him, he had a laptop bag containing his computer. He denied the suggestion that in reality, he had been staying longer at Ms. Robinson’s place and that the mail police found had come in and accumulated over a period of time. He acknowledged that the smaller amount of cash, $495, found on the gray dresser was his. He denied that the funds were obtained from the proceeds of crime. He testified that he took the cash out of his pocket and placed it on top of the gray dresser. He used a card holder instead of a wallet and had left it in the rental vehicle outside. The card holder contained his driver’s licence among other cards.
[36] He acknowledged that, prior to June 28, 2022, he had never slept over at Ms. Robinson’s house. He denied seeing the digital scale with a tray with white residue on it.
[37] Once police concluded their search, police let him back into the basement. It took him roughly 10 to 15 minutes to retrieve his items from the basement bedroom and place them in the rental car outside.
Applicable Legal Principles
[38] I have instructed myself with respect to several important legal principles that arise in this matter.
Presumption of Innocence and Requirement of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
[39] Mr. Ellis is presumed to be innocent, unless and until the Crown has proven the offences against him beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not enough for me to believe that he is possibly or even probably guilty. I must be convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As a standard, reasonable doubt does not require proof beyond all doubt, nor is it proof to an absolute certainty. At the same time, reasonable doubt lies far closer to absolute certainty than it does to a balance of probabilities.
W.D. Analysis
[40] I must comply with the analysis in R. v. W.(D)., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, at p. 758:
- If I believe Mr. Ellis’ evidence that he did not have possession of the illegal items found in the bedroom, I must find him not guilty.
- If I believe any other defence evidence that Mr. Ellis did not have possession of the illegal items found in the bedroom, I must find him not guilty.
- Even if I do not believe Mr. Ellis or other defence evidence, if it leaves me with a reasonable doubt about his possession, I must find him not guilty.
- Even if Mr. Ellis’ evidence or any other defence evidence does not leave me with a reasonable doubt of Mr. Ellis’ possession, I may convict him only if the rest of the evidence that I do accept proves his possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
Possession
[41] Section 4(3) of the Criminal Code defines possession. It includes personal possession, constructive possession, and joint possession:
4(3) For the purposes of this Act,
(a) a person has anything in possession when he has it in his personal possession or knowingly
(i) has it in the actual possession or custody of another person, or
(ii) has it in any place, whether or not that place belongs to or is occupied by him, for the use or benefit of himself or of another person; and
(b) where one of two or more persons, with the knowledge and consent of the rest, has anything in his custody or possession, it shall be deemed to be in the custody and possession of each and all of them.
[42] In R. v. Faudar, 2021 ONCA 226, 403 C.C.C. (3d) 43, at paras. 84-87, the Court of Appeal provided the following description of constructive possession:
Constructive possession applies when an accused did not have physical custody of the object in question, but did have it “in the actual possession or custody of another person” or “in any place, whether or not that place belongs to or is occupied by him, for the use or benefit of himself or of another person”: Criminal Code, s. 4(3)(a); R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253, at para. 17.
To establish constructive possession, the Crown must prove:
- That the accused knew the character of the object;
- That the accused knowingly put or kept the object in a particular place; and
- That the accused intended to have the object in the particular place for his use or benefit or that of another: Morelli, at para. 17; R. v. Lights, 2020 ONCA 128, 149 O.R. (3d) 273, at paras. 47-48.
There must be knowledge that discloses some measure of control over the item to be possessed: R. v. Pham (2005), 77 O.R. (3d) 401 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 14-15, aff’d 2006 SCC 26, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 940. In many cases, the evidence relied upon to prove constructive possession is wholly or substantially circumstantial: Lights, at para. 48.
Occupancy of premises alone does not create a presumption of possession, but it supports an inference of control when coupled with evidence of knowledge: Lights, at para. 50; R. v. Watson, 2011 ONCA 437, at para. 13; R. v. Lincoln, 2012 ONCA 542, at para. 3. The circumstantial evidence must tie the accused to the location such that the only reasonable inference is that the accused was aware of the contraband and had control over access to it: Lights, at paras. 36, 98; Pham, at paras. 17-18, 25-29; R. v. Dipnarine, 2014 ABCA 328, 316 C.C.C. (3d) 357, at paras. 17-20.
[43] In order to constitute joint possession pursuant to s. 4(3) of the Code, there must be knowledge, consent, and a measure of control on the part of the person deemed to be in possession: R. v. Brown, 2023 ONSC 901, at para. 65, citing Pham, 77 O.R. (3d) 401 (C.A.), at paras. 13-15.
[44] Control over a room is a relevant piece of evidence in establishing knowledge and control of drugs therein, but it must still be established that knowledge and control of the drugs is the only reasonable inference available: R. v. Morris, 2017 ONSC 835, at para. 101; R. v. Choudhury, 2021 ONCA 560, at para. 19.
Circumstantial Evidence
[45] Even in a case where the accused testifies, the principles of circumstantial evidence must be followed where the Crown relies heavily on circumstantial evidence to tie the accused to a particular location and argue that the accused had possession (i.e. knowledge and control) of the drugs found in that location.
[46] In R. v. Tewolde, 2023 ONSC 4932 at para. 113, citing R. v. Gill, 2017 ONSC 3558, Forestell J. cautioned that where one or more elements of an offence relies largely or exclusively on circumstantial evidence, “an inference of guilt drawn from circumstantial evidence should be the only reasonable inference that such evidence permits”: R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000, at para. 30.
Discussion
[47] The Crown concedes that Mr. Ellis’ occupancy of the bedroom does not equate with his possession of the contraband. However, the Crown submits that police found Mr. Ellis alone in a small bedroom where a digital scale with white powder on a wooden dresser, and $495 on another dresser, were openly on display. In the wooden dresser there was almost 24 g of cocaine and $8,030 in cash. Mr. Ellis’ clothing and laptop were found on a gray dresser at the foot of the bed. Four pieces of Mr. Ellis’ mail were found under two black objects—a black box with a “Chanel” logo and the French words ‘Eau de’ on it, and what appears to be the inside of a ballpoint pen with the top attached. Mr. Ellis denied placing the two items on top of his mail and suggested that police officers may have displaced or moved items when they conducted their search such that the two black items ended up on top of his mail.
[48] The Crown submits that the garbage bags of Mr. Ellis’ clothing, his personal laptop, and mail found on site are consistent with a stay longer than the 36 hours that he claimed. If his stay was longer, this would cast Mr. Ellis’ credibility into doubt and greatly increase the likelihood that he had knowledge of the cocaine and larger amount of cash in the bedroom. Given what appears to be Mr. Ellis’ unrestricted access to the bedroom and the items within it, the Crown submits that Mr. Ellis also had control of the bedroom, hence he had possession (i.e. knowledge and control) of the cocaine and $8,030 at issue.
[49] The Crown points to several problems with Mr. Ellis’ evidence. First, the Crown suggests that Mr. Ellis’ evidence on how he gained entry to the premises was not credible because it is likely he had a passcode to the side door. It is implausible that Tyler Robinson would stay up past 1 o’clock in the morning to open the side door for his friend. Second, in Mr. Ellis’ examination-in-chief, he testified about arriving at the premises with only two garbage bags of clothing, but admitted in cross-examination that he also brought his laptop computer in a leather bag. Third, Mr. Ellis’ explanation about the placement of the mail does not make sense; namely, that in order to access a new set of clothing, he removed other clothing and mail at the top of one of the garbage bags and placed the items on the gray dresser, rather than simply moving the items around in the garbage bag.
[50] Finally, the Crown submits that Ms. Robinson conceded that she did not know who owned or possessed the cocaine and cash found in the basement.
[51] I have considered these aspects of Mr. Ellis’ evidence and the overall evidence at trial but remain unconvinced of Mr. Ellis’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is common ground that the basement bedroom was very messy with clothing, plastic water bottles, bedding, garbage bags, and other personal effects. In the circumstances, I find it is reasonable that Mr. Ellis may not have noticed the digital scale that police found on open display on the wooden dresser. Obviously, a digital scale, particularly one with a white powdery substance on top is commonly associated with drugs, but here the drugs themselves were not on open display. Also, the powdery substance was never tested and identified as cocaine.
[52] The larger amount of cocaine was located in a drawer under torn plastic shreds in the wooden dresser, and the smaller amount was in a knotted gray plastic wrap on the nightstand. I cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that it would have been evident to Mr. Ellis that these drugs were in the bedroom. This speaks to his lack of knowledge. I have considered Mr. Ellis’ evidence that he had previously seen Tyler Robinson use cocaine, but that was in the backyard shed.
[53] In this case I cannot conclude that because Mr. Ellis knew that Tyler was a cocaine user, when Mr. Ellis saw the digital scale in the messy bedroom he must have known that there was cocaine in the drawer of the wooden dresser or in a piece of plastic on the nightstand. With respect to the knotted gray packaging on the nightstand, given the late hour of Mr. Ellis’ arrival, the short duration of his stay, and the fact that it was among several water bottles, there is a reasonable possibility that Mr. Ellis may not have noticed it or, if he did, thought it was garbage.
[54] Of course, it is possible that the cocaine belonged to and was brought into the bedroom by Mr. Ellis and not by Tyler. However, the preponderance of evidence strongly points to Tyler.
[55] First, I believe Ms. Robinson’s evidence that Tyler was a cocaine addict at the time and she had seen him use cocaine in her presence. Mr. Ellis testified similarly. Second, given that the smaller amount of cocaine on the nightstand was wrapped in the same type of torn gray plastic as was found in the drawer of the wooden dresser—under which the larger amount of cocaine in baggies was found—I conclude that the same person was responsible for both quantities of cocaine. Third, as explained below, the circumstantial evidence points strongly towards Tyler having exclusive possession of both quantities of cocaine. Finally, given the large amount of cash, $8,030 found near the larger quantity of cocaine in the drawer of the wooden dresser, I infer that this cash was proceeds of crime.
[56] I find it unlikely that, had Mr. Ellis brought the cocaine into the bedroom, he would secrete the larger amount of cocaine and cash in the drawer of the wooden dresser. While it is possible that Mr. Ellis simply placed the baggies of cocaine and $8,030 in the wooden dresser drawer, the plausibility of this inference is diminished by Ms. Robinson’s evidence that several of Tyler’s items of sentimental value were found in close proximity. An ultrasound photo of Tyler’s daughter, a frame of the daughter’s handprint, and a birthday card that was intended for the daughter were all found in that drawer. I draw the inference that Tyler kept his personal belongings in that drawer and that the larger amount of cocaine and cash also belonged to him.
[57] I will now turn to the nightstand where the smaller amount of cocaine was found. The small knotted gray bag of plastic containing the cocaine was found laying on top of a gold chain with a cross that Ms. Robinson identified as belonging to her son Tyler. The knotted bag was directly beside a blue book that Ms. Robinson also identified as Tyler’s. I note that the nightstand was found on the right side of the bed and that Mr. Ellis’ uncontested evidence is that he slept on the left side of the bed. In my view, it would be incongruous for Mr. Ellis to have placed the smaller amount of cocaine on the opposite side of the bed to where he was sleeping, particularly when he left his other personal items like $495 in cash, his laptop, and clothing on the gray dresser below the TV. Finally, I note that the small, knotted bag of cocaine was found behind several water bottles. Ms. Robinson testified that she saw Tyler drinking from water bottles all the time and that he usually had one in his hand.
[58] Police evidence confirms that Tyler returned to the house roughly ten minutes before they entered the premises. Ms. Robinson’s evidence is that Tyler lived in the basement and that when police knocked on the side door, he came up from the basement and answered it. I draw the inference that Tyler was in the basement bedroom shortly before police entered the premises. I find that there is a reasonable possibility that Tyler left a digital scale on the wooden dresser near his Bass Pro Shops hat. This could also explain why Mr. Ellis did not notice the digital scale. Mr. Ellis’ evidence was that sometime before he was awoken by police, Tyler woke him up. Mr. Ellis went on his phone for a bit and then went back to sleep. Mr. Ellis’ testimony also places Tyler in the bedroom in the minutes or hours before police entered the premises.
[59] Overall, I believe Mr. Ellis’ evidence that he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. I find that Mr. Ellis did not know about these items and that they belonged to Tyler Robinson. Prior to his stay Mr. Ellis had a dispute with the girlfriend and grabbed a number of his belongings in order to temporarily “crash” with his friend Tyler. In these circumstances, I do not find it suspicious that Mr. Ellis left $495 on a dresser or that he placed his items in several garbage bags and took them over to Tyler’s place in the middle of the night. I find that there is a reasonable possibility that the cocaine and larger quantity of cash were left in the bedroom by Tyler Robinson and that Mr. Ellis had no knowledge or control of these items.
Conclusion
[60] I find Mr. Ellis not guilty of any of the offences charged. I believe his overall account of what transpired and he must be acquitted.
Released: June 26, 2025