R. v. Hiscoe

R. v. Hiscoe

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the five grams of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking because the text messages were equivocal and, taken with all other indicia (amount consistent with personal use, lack of trafficking paraphernalia), do not permit the only reasonable inference of intent to traffic; however the accused did have possession (knowledge and constructive control) and is guilty of possession under s.4(1) CDSA.

Citation
2012 NSPC 21
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Jamie Scott Hiscoe
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal (controlled Drugs and Substances Act) / Trial (judge Decision Following Voir Dire)
Outcome
Acquitted of s.5(2) CDSA (possession for purpose of trafficking); convicted of included offence s.4(1) CDSA (possession)
Legal Topics
Possession, Trafficking, Search and Seizure, Voir Dire, Admissibility of Digital Evidence, Standard of Proof
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Controlled Substances Law Evidence Law Possession Trafficking Search and Seizure Voir Dire Admissibility of Digital Evidence +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Jamie Scott Hiscoe

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (controlled Drugs and Substances Act) / Trial (judge Decision Following Voir Dire)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused possessed the drugs found at the scene
  2. 2 Whether the possession was for the purpose of trafficking
  3. 3 Admissibility and weight of cellphone text messages and other digital evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the five grams of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking because the text messages were equivocal and, taken with all other indicia (amount consistent with personal use, lack of trafficking paraphernalia), do not permit the only reasonable inference of intent to traffic; however the accused did have possession (knowledge and constructive control) and is guilty of possession under s.4(1) CDSA.

Court Disposition

Acquitted of s.5(2) CDSA (possession for purpose of trafficking); convicted of included offence s.4(1) CDSA (possession)

Orders

  • Found not guilty of s.5(2) CDSA (trafficking)
  • Found guilty of s.4(1) CDSA (possession)