R. v. Bjornson

R. v. Bjornson

On the totality of admissible circumstantial evidence — physical possession of cocaine on Bjornson, significant cash holdings in both accused (including many $20 bills), multiple incoming calls to cellphones in Costello's possession consistent with drug sales, packaging consistent with trafficking, presence of bear spray, and expert evidence describing a two-person dial-a-dope operation — the only reasonable inference is that Costello and Bjornson were in joint possession of the drugs for the purpose of trafficking; conviction warranted.

Citation
2009 BCSC 1780
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Riley Alexander Bjornson; Accused: Daryl Allan Costello
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking / Trial Judgment (guilty Verdict)
Outcome
Both accused found guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Legal Topics
Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, Joint/constructive Possession, Admissibility of Telephone Calls as Circumstantial Evidence, Expert Opinion Evidence, Voir Dire
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Drugs Law Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking Joint/constructive Possession Admissibility of Telephone Calls as Circumstantial Evidence Expert Opinion Evidence Voir Dire

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Riley Alexander Bjornson

Accused

Daryl Allan Costello

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking / Trial Judgment (guilty Verdict)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr. Costello had knowledge and control sufficient for joint possession of the cocaine found in Mr. Bjornson's shoe
  2. 2 Whether the drugs were possessed for the purpose of trafficking
  3. 3 Admissibility and probative use of telephone calls made to seized cellphones

Ratio Decidendi

On the totality of admissible circumstantial evidence — physical possession of cocaine on Bjornson, significant cash holdings in both accused (including many $20 bills), multiple incoming calls to cellphones in Costello's possession consistent with drug sales, packaging consistent with trafficking, presence of bear spray, and expert evidence describing a two-person dial-a-dope operation — the only reasonable inference is that Costello and Bjornson were in joint possession of the drugs for the purpose of trafficking; conviction warranted.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Riley Alexander Bjornson and Daryl Allan Costello convicted as charged for possession for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act