R. v. Omakaro

R. v. Omakaro Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2022-03-09 Neutral citation 2022 ONCA 204 Docket numbers C70013 Judges Rouleau, Paul S.; Huscroft, Grant; Trotter, Gary T. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Omakaro, 2022 ONCA 204 DATE: 20220309 DOCKET: C70013 Rouleau, Huscroft and Trotter JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Orobosa Omakaro Appellant Jessica Zita, appearing as duty counsel Jeffrey Wyngaarden, for the respondent Heard and released orally: March 7, 2022, by video conference On appeal from the conviction entered on December 1, 2020, by Justice Wendy L. Harris Bentley of the Ontario Court of Justice. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant argues that the verdict is unreasonable. He submits that the only evidence is his fingerprint that was found on the Bluetooth speaker that the perpetrator of the offence attempted to steal. In the appellant’s submission, the trial judge did not give appropriate weight to the fact that the speaker was portable and that the complainant had roommates who would have had access to the speaker. The trial judge also, in the appellant’s submission, over-emphasized the weight to be given to this fingerprint evidence. [2] Finally, the appellant submits that there was evidence that a police tracker dog had followed the tracks of the perpetrator to a point near to the residence of another person who the appellant suggests better fit the description given by the complainant of the perpetrator of the offence. [3] We do not agree. In this case there was other evidence bolstering the fingerprint evidence, including the fact that the complainant saw the perpetrator touched the speaker without gloves as the offence was being committed. In addition, the complainant testified that he was living alone at the time of the offence. He also gave evidence as to the location and use of the speaker as well as his practice of disinfecting it periodically. [4] The complainant also explained that his roommates had not been in the unit for about a month prior to the offence. Other purported theories as to how the appellant’s fingerprints came to be on the speaker were, in our view, properly dismissed as speculative. [5] For these reasons, we conclude that the trial judge’s finding of guilt is not unreasonable, and the appeal is dismissed. “Paul Rouleau J.A.” “Grant Huscroft J.A.” “Gary Trotter J.A.”