Circumstantial Evidence (Case Digests): Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "(R v [A-Z][a-z]+)," to "''$1''," |
m Text replacement - "\'\'R v ([^\']+)\'\', \[http:\/\/canlii.ca\/t\/([^\s]+) ([0-9]{4} [^\s]+ [0-9]+)\] \(([^\)]+\))([^\{]+)\{" to "{{CanLIIRP|$1|$2|$3 ($4|$5}}{" |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
* | *{{CanLIIRP|Frank|fpbqh|2011 BCSC 1716 (CanLII)| -- circumstantial case -- single fingerprint on duct tape used to bind victims -- guilty | ||
* ''R v Grant'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1pzxw 2006 ABPC 306] (CanLII) | * ''R v Grant'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1pzxw 2006 ABPC 306] (CanLII) | ||
* ''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 | * ''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 | ||
* 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 | * 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 | ||
* R v Keller (1970) 1 CCC (2d) 203{{NOCANLII}} -- convicted -- fingerprint on matchbook found at scene sufficient to connect accused with break and enter. | * R v Keller (1970) 1 CCC (2d) 203}}{{NOCANLII}} -- convicted -- fingerprint on matchbook found at scene sufficient to connect accused with break and enter. | ||
--> | --> | ||