R. v. Coleman

R. v. Coleman

On the totality of circumstantial evidence — location in shared residence, accused's proximity and line of sight to the uncovered pill bottle on the stove, possession of cash consistent with street quantities, presence of scales, tinfoil and weapons, expert evidence that packaging and quantity are consistent with sale — the only reasonable inference is that the accused possessed the crack cocaine and did so for the purpose of trafficking.

Citation
2011 NSPC 18
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty The Queen; Accused: Craig Allen Coleman
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Offence / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Guilty as charged
Legal Topics
Possession for Purpose of Trafficking, Circumstantial Evidence, Expert Opinion on Drug Distribution, Constructive Possession, Failure to Testify
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Evidence Search and Seizure Possession for Purpose of Trafficking Circumstantial Evidence Expert Opinion on Drug Distribution Constructive Possession +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Crown

Craig Allen Coleman

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Offence / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused possessed the cocaine found in the pill bottle on the stove
  2. 2 Whether possession, if proved, was for the purpose of trafficking
  3. 3 Whether the Crown's circumstantial evidence excludes reasonable alternative inferences

Ratio Decidendi

On the totality of circumstantial evidence — location in shared residence, accused's proximity and line of sight to the uncovered pill bottle on the stove, possession of cash consistent with street quantities, presence of scales, tinfoil and weapons, expert evidence that packaging and quantity are consistent with sale — the only reasonable inference is that the accused possessed the crack cocaine and did so for the purpose of trafficking.

Court Disposition

Guilty as charged

Orders

  • Accused found guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s.5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act