23 total
Three young persons found guilty of first-degree murder based on text messages and surveillance; one acquitted.
Four young persons were charged with the first-degree murder of a sixteen-year-old victim who was shot and killed in a residential building staircase.
The Crown alleged that the accused lured the victim into the staircase as part of a planned and deliberate execution, relying heavily on surveillance video and extensive text message evidence containing gang slang.
The court found three of the accused guilty as joint principals or aiders, concluding they orchestrated and executed the plan.
The fourth accused was found not guilty, as the evidence raised suspicions but failed to prove his involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.
Application for directed verdict in first degree murder trial dismissed due to sufficient circumstantial evidence.
The young person applicant, charged with first degree murder alongside three co-accused, applied for a directed verdict on the basis of insufficient evidence.
The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including text messages, video surveillance, and the applicant's flight from the scene, to establish the applicant's participation in a planned and deliberate murder.
The court dismissed the application, finding that there was sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, could return a verdict of guilty.
Defendants' statements to police ruled voluntary despite not being informed of all specific firearms charges.
The Crown brought an application to admit videotaped statements made by two defendants following their arrest for firearms offences.
The defendants argued the statements were involuntary because the interviewing officer failed to inform them they would also be charged with being occupants of a motor vehicle knowing there was a firearm.
One defendant also alleged he was assaulted by an officer and that the interviewing officer used inducements and trickery.
The court found that the defendants generally understood the serious jeopardy they faced regarding the firearms investigation, and that the failure to specify the occupant charge did not invalidate their waiver of rights.
The court also rejected the allegations of inducements, oppressive trickery, and the impact of the alleged assault, ruling the statements voluntary and admissible.