Ontario criminal | Drug offences
TRAFFICKING
Conviction for trafficking in crack cocaine upheld on appeal
Accused appealed his convictions for trafficking in crack cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime. Sole issue at trial was identification. Accused submitted that trial judge misapprehended material evidence; failed to draw reasonable inferences from evidence; and overall rendered verdict that was unreasonable. Appeal dismissed. Trial judge gave thorough reasons in which he explained in detail identification evidence that he accepted and relied on and that evidence he did not rely on. Officer testified that seller was in rear passenger seat on driver’s side. Second officer testified that he followed car in question, and that no one exited car until accused exited from rear passenger seat on driver’s side. Observation of accused was virtually continuous starting within seconds of sale. Trial judge was entitled to disregard third officer’s evidence as it was obviously hearsay and not based on actual observation. Trial judge was also entitled to accept description of accused given by first officer to effect that accused had long hair. This description was consistent with officer’s immediate description of seller as having big, puffy hair. It was reasonable for trial judge to conclude that none of other occupants of car had hair matching that description.
R. v. Humoud (Aug. 27, 2015, Ont. C.A., John Laskin J.A., C.W. Hourigan J.A., and G. Pardu J.A., File No. CA C59242) 124 W.C.B. (2d) 355.
Conviction for trafficking in crack cocaine upheld on appeal
Accused appealed his convictions for trafficking in crack cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime. Sole issue at trial was identification. Accused submitted that trial judge misapprehended material evidence; failed to draw reasonable inferences from evidence; and overall rendered verdict that was unreasonable. Appeal dismissed. Trial judge gave thorough reasons in which he explained in detail identification evidence that he accepted and relied on and that evidence he did not rely on. Officer testified that seller was in rear passenger seat on driver’s side. Second officer testified that he followed car in question, and that no one exited car until accused exited from rear passenger seat on driver’s side. Observation of accused was virtually continuous starting within seconds of sale. Trial judge was entitled to disregard third officer’s evidence as it was obviously hearsay and not based on actual observation. Trial judge was also entitled to accept description of accused given by first officer to effect that accused had long hair. This description was consistent with officer’s immediate description of seller as having big, puffy hair. It was reasonable for trial judge to conclude that none of other occupants of car had hair matching that description.
R. v. Humoud (Aug. 27, 2015, Ont. C.A., John Laskin J.A., C.W. Hourigan J.A., and G. Pardu J.A., File No. CA C59242) 124 W.C.B. (2d) 355.
