R. v. Johnson

R. v. Johnson

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite knowledge and control over the marihuana or that she intentionally aided or actively participated in production or theft; circumstantial evidence did not exclude the reasonable inference that another individual controlled the basement and the grow operation; wilful blindness was not established; therefore the accused is not guilty on all counts.

Citation
2016 BCSC 922
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Kara Lynn Margo Johnson
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal CDSA Production and Possession; Criminal Code Theft / Trial Oral Reasons for Judgment (decision)
Outcome
Accused found not guilty on Counts 1 (possession for purpose of trafficking), 2 (production) and 3 (theft of electricity)
Legal Topics
Possession for Purpose of Trafficking, Production of Controlled Substance, Constructive Possession, Wilful Blindness, Party Liability (s.21 Criminal Code), Theft of Electricity, Circumstantial Evidence Assessment, Search Warrant Execution
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Property/utility Theft Possession for Purpose of Trafficking Production of Controlled Substance Constructive Possession Wilful Blindness Party Liability (s.21 Criminal Code) +3 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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Kara Lynn Margo Johnson

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal CDSA Production and Possession; Criminal Code Theft / Trial Oral Reasons for Judgment (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused had knowledge and control of the marihuana plants to constitute possession for trafficking
  2. 2 Whether the accused actively participated in or was a party to production of marihuana
  3. 3 Whether the accused caused, aided or abetted the theft of electricity

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite knowledge and control over the marihuana or that she intentionally aided or actively participated in production or theft; circumstantial evidence did not exclude the reasonable inference that another individual controlled the basement and the grow operation; wilful blindness was not established; therefore the accused is not guilty on all counts.

Court Disposition

Accused found not guilty on Counts 1 (possession for purpose of trafficking), 2 (production) and 3 (theft of electricity)

Orders

  • Accused acquitted on all counts and released; no further orders recorded