3 total
Accused found guilty of home invasion and firearms offences based on circumstantial and DNA evidence.
The accused were charged with multiple offences arising from a violent home invasion where masked intruders assaulted the occupants and demanded money while armed with firearms.
The intruders fled in a stolen vehicle, leading to a police pursuit and their subsequent arrest in a wooded area.
The court relied on circumstantial evidence, including DNA on discarded gloves, flight from police, and the accused's presence in the getaway vehicle, to find both accused guilty as co-principals or aiders to robbery, break and enter, disguise with intent, and various firearms offences.
Fingerprint inside secured display case supported robbery conviction.
The accused was charged with robbery and possession of an imitation firearm arising from a robbery at a cellular phone store.
The Crown relied primarily on fingerprint evidence consisting of a partial palm print located on a glass shelf inside a display case from which phones were taken during the robbery.
Applying the principles governing circumstantial evidence and fingerprint evidence from appellate authorities, the court considered whether the inference that the accused left the print during the robbery was the only reasonable inference.
The court found there was no evidence supporting any alternative explanation for the presence of the print in a secured vendor area behind the display case.
The accused was convicted of robbery but acquitted on the charge of possession of an imitation firearm due to lack of evidence.
Firearm charges dismissed as circumstantial DNA evidence failed to prove knowing possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
The accused was charged with multiple firearm offences after police stopped a vehicle in which he was a passenger and found a loaded handgun hidden in a sock in the seat pouch in front of him.
The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the presence of the accused's DNA on the sock.
The court found that while the circumstances were suspicious, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the firearm, as there was no direct evidence connecting him to the gun and alternative explanations for the DNA transfer could not be excluded.
All charges were dismissed.