R. v. Anderson

R. v. Anderson

The judge found Justin Stanley's voice identification together with circumstantial evidence (use of the name 'Joey' by the victim and in texts, and rebuke during the incident) constituted some evidence on which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could convict; therefore a directed verdict of acquittal was not appropriate and the defence application was dismissed.

Citation
2014 BCSC 1517
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Joadth Michael Anderson; Accused: Travis Arthur Kelly; Accused: James Phillip Patrick Paulin
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Directed Verdict at Close of Crown's Case (judgment Reserved; Decision Delivered After Crown Evidence Only)
Outcome
Application for directed verdict dismissed; no acquittal entered; trial to proceed
Legal Topics
Identification Evidence, Voice Identification, Directed Verdict, Acquittal
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Identification Evidence Voice Identification Directed Verdict Acquittal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Joadth Michael Anderson

Accused

Travis Arthur Kelly

Accused

James Phillip Patrick Paulin

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application for Directed Verdict at Close of Crown's Case (judgment Reserved; Decision Delivered After Crown Evidence Only)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was any evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could convict Anderson
  2. 2 Reliability and weight of voice identification evidence
  3. 3 Whether a directed verdict (acquittal) was appropriate at the close of the Crown's case

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found Justin Stanley's voice identification together with circumstantial evidence (use of the name 'Joey' by the victim and in texts, and rebuke during the incident) constituted some evidence on which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could convict; therefore a directed verdict of acquittal was not appropriate and the defence application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for directed verdict dismissed; no acquittal entered; trial to proceed

Orders

  • Application for a directed verdict of acquittal dismissed
  • Proceed to trial (matter to continue before jury)