Circumstantial Evidence (Case Digests): Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
m Text replacement - "R v ([A-Z])\.([A-Z])\.([A-Z])\.," to "''R v $1$2$3'',"
No edit summary
 
(8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<!--
<!--
*R v Frank, [http://canlii.ca/t/fpbqh 2011 BCSC 1716] (CanLII) -- circumstantial case -- single fingerprint on duct tape used to bind victims -- guilty
* {{CanLIIRx|Frank|fpbqh|2011 BCSC 1716 (CanLII)}}{{perBCSC|Powers J}} -- circumstantial case -- single fingerprint on duct tape used to bind victims -- guilty
* R v Grant, [http://canlii.ca/t/1pzxw 2006 ABPC 306] (CanLII)
* {{CanLIIRx|Grant|1pzxw|2006 ABPC 306 (CanLII)}}{{perABPC|Allen J}}
* ''R v SWM'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1m1b0 2005 BCSC 1601] (CanLII) -- conviction -- father was last person with child before discovery of injuries, coupled with evidence of past bad acts
* {{CanLIIRx|SWM|1m1b0|2005 BCSC 1601 (CanLII)}}{{perBCSC|Ehrcke J}} -- conviction -- father was last person with child before discovery of injuries, coupled with evidence of past bad acts
* Tsigaridas, [http://canlii.ca/t/6k70 1994 CanLII 1289] (ON CA), [1994] O.J. No 1999 (Ont C.A.) -- acquittal -- evidence showing that keys to restaurant were shared with employees negates exclusive opportunity of owner to burn down business
* {{CanLIIRP|Tsigaridas|6k70|1994 CanLII 1289 (ON CA)|[1994] OJ No 1999 (Ont C.A.)}}{{fix}} -- acquittal -- evidence showing that keys to restaurant were shared with employees negates exclusive opportunity of owner to burn down business
* R v Keller (1970) 1 CCC (2d) 203{{NOCANLII}} -- convicted -- fingerprint on matchbook found at scene sufficient to connect accused with break and enter.
* {{CanLIIR-N|Keller|(1970) 1 CCC (2d) 203}} -- convicted -- fingerprint on matchbook found at scene sufficient to connect accused with break and enter.
-->
-->

Latest revision as of 21:26, 12 August 2021