R. v. Kinley

R. v. Kinley

On the totality of the evidence — teller identification (photo and dock), independent recognition by a correctional officer familiar with the accused from video and stills, proximity and similar clothing and jewellery seized, and marked handwriting similarities between the robbery note and inmate forms — the Crown proved identity beyond a reasonable doubt; the circumstances and the note reasonably induced fear making the offence robbery under s.344(1)(b), and evidence of intoxication was insufficient to negate specific intent, therefore the accused is guilty of robbery.

Citation
2020 BCSC 2248
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Dean Evan Kinley
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Robbery / Trial Judgment (conviction)
Outcome
Guilty — convicted of robbery contrary to s.344(1)(b) of the Criminal Code
Legal Topics
Robbery, Identification Evidence, Circumstantial Evidence, Intoxication and Capacity, Handwriting Comparison, Specific Intent
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Robbery Identification Evidence Circumstantial Evidence Intoxication and Capacity Handwriting Comparison Specific Intent

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Dean Evan Kinley

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Robbery / Trial Judgment (conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was Dean Evan Kinley the person who committed the bank robbery?
  2. 2 Did the offence as committed meet the statutory definition of robbery under s.343 and s.344(1)(b) of the Criminal Code?
  3. 3 Did the accused have the requisite specific intent to commit robbery, or did intoxication negate intent?

Ratio Decidendi

On the totality of the evidence — teller identification (photo and dock), independent recognition by a correctional officer familiar with the accused from video and stills, proximity and similar clothing and jewellery seized, and marked handwriting similarities between the robbery note and inmate forms — the Crown proved identity beyond a reasonable doubt; the circumstances and the note reasonably induced fear making the offence robbery under s.344(1)(b), and evidence of intoxication was insufficient to negate specific intent, therefore the accused is guilty of robbery.

Court Disposition

Guilty — convicted of robbery contrary to s.344(1)(b) of the Criminal Code