R. v. MacInnis

R. v. MacInnis

Prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused forcibly broke and entered because the physical evidence of the point of entry was inadequate and contradicted the forced-entry theory; however, the accused was proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have been inside the dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence, and therefore guilty of s.349(1).

Citation
2014 NSPC 55
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Robert Douglas MacInnis
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal (break and Enter) / Trial Verdict
Outcome
Accused acquitted of break, enter and commit mischief (para. 348(1)(b)) and break and enter with intent; convicted of being unlawfully in a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence contrary to s.349(1) of the Criminal Code.
Legal Topics
Break and Enter, Unlawful Dwelling Entry (s.349), Mischief (s.430), Burden of Proof and W.(d.) Test, Point of Entry Forensics, Included Offences
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Property Offences Evidence Forensic Investigation Break and Enter Unlawful Dwelling Entry (s.349) Mischief (s.430) Burden of Proof and W.(d.) Test +2 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Robert Douglas MacInnis

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal (break and Enter) / Trial Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused forcibly broke and entered the dwelling
  2. 2 Whether the accused was unlawfully in a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence (s.349(1))
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution proved forced entry beyond a reasonable doubt given the physical evidence presented

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused forcibly broke and entered because the physical evidence of the point of entry was inadequate and contradicted the forced-entry theory; however, the accused was proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have been inside the dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence, and therefore guilty of s.349(1).

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted of break, enter and commit mischief (para. 348(1)(b)) and break and enter with intent; convicted of being unlawfully in a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence contrary to s.349(1) of the Criminal Code.

Orders

  • Not guilty verdict entered on charge of break, enter and commit mischief (para. 348(1)(b))
  • Not guilty verdict entered on break and enter with intent (included offence under s.662(6))