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.
