Circumstantial evidence

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if the combination of all the circumstances is such as to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.  Note, it is not one circumstance at a time but the totality of the evidence.  This last point is shown by R. v. Medina, 2010 ONCA 261, released today which provides:

 

 

[4]              The appellant in argument sought to subject every separate item of circumstantial evidence to scrutiny as to whether the appellant’s guilt was the only rational inference that could be drawn from that piece of evidence.  The trial judge’s conclusion, quite correctly, was based on the consideration of the entire body of circumstantial evidence that was before him.  The circumstantial evidence included the facts that the apartment sublease was in the appellant’s name, that access to the building required the use of Medeco keys, which were turned over to a person who identified himself as the appellant and which could not readily be duplicated, that the appellant’s expired identity documents, including one with his picture, were found in the apartment, that his car was in the apartment’s parking space and was moved during the relevant time frame, and that a key fob that permitted access to his car was found inside the apartment.