The appellant was convicted of offences arising from a home invasion robbery on the basis of circumstantial evidence of identity, namely DNA found on a cigarette butt in a stolen vehicle and a victim's testimony that he may have heard the appellant's last name spoken during the robbery.
The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada found the verdicts unreasonable, holding that the DNA evidence alone did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial judge misapprehended the victim's testimony and failed to address serious concerns about his reliability.
The majority set aside the convictions and substituted verdicts of acquittal.
Côté and O'Bonsawin JJ. dissented, finding the combined effect of the DNA and identification evidence reasonably supported the inference of guilt.
