On an application for a directed verdict in a manslaughter jury trial arising from a fatal shooting during an attempted robbery, the court held the Crown's circumstantial case did not provide a reasonable and logical evidentiary basis to infer that the accused was the getaway driver.
Cell phone evidence and vehicle-rental evidence were insufficient to bridge the inferential gap in light of direct eyewitness evidence that only two men occupied the getaway car.
The court further held the Crown could not, at that stage, materially alter its theory of liability from aiding as the driver to a broader participation theory.
The application was granted, a not guilty verdict entered, and the jury discharged.
