Circumstantial evidence in criminal trials

In a brief decision released earlier this month the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lacroix, 2008 SCC 67 reaffirmed the rule that circumstantial evidence, standing alone,  will lead to a criminal conviction only where there is no other reasonable explanation for circumstances proven.

 

The Court held:

 

The issue is whether the guilty verdicts entered by the trial judge are unreasonable.  We agree with Chamberland J.A.’s conclusion in dissent that [translation] “[t]he circumstantial evidence has so little weight that it was unreasonable to convict the appellant of the assault on L.V.”

 

In dissent below Chamberland J.A. wrote:

 

 

[34]           Dans R. c. Charemski et R. c. Cooper, la Cour suprême enseigne qu'en présence d'une preuve uniquement circonstancielle, le juge du procès doit être convaincu hors de tout doute raisonnable que la culpabilité de l'accusé est la seule conclusion logique ou rationnelle.