Criminal law — Procedure — Trials — Motions - Directed verdict — Application for directed verdict allowed — No evidence before trial judge upon which accused could be convicted — Officer charged accused Williams as a result of a mugshot of an individual named Williams — Accused had been arrested under name of Gunn - There was no evidence that correct name of person on mugshot was Williams.

       Charges: False Identification — Obstruct Police

Counsel:

Ms. C. Boyd Counsel for the Crown

Mr. C. Angelini Counsel for the accused

¶ 1      K.J. CALDWELL J.:— Turning back to the Williams matter then. This is a motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the case for the Crown, and I am granting the motion.

¶ 2      The test that I must apply is whether there is some evidence before me upon which I could find Ms. Williams guilty and I find that there is no evidence before me upon which I could find her guilty.

¶ 3      The evidence from the primary officer in this case is that subsequent to releasing the individual before the court under the name of Melecia Gunn he viewed a mug shot on the RIKKI system labelled Tamra Williams and as a result he concluded that the individual who he had originally arrested was, indeed, Tamra Williams and therefore she was charged with the offence that is before the court.

¶ 4      Even if I were to conclude that the photograph that the officer viewed was of the individual before the court there is no admissible evidence before me that the correct name of the person in that photograph is Tamra Williams. The naming of the photograph is essentially hearsay evidence as the photo was obviously labelled by another individual at another time and I have not heard from that individual, nor do I have any information as to how that individual determined that this was the name of the person that was photographed. As such I do not accept that the name applied to the photo on the RIKKI system is evidence of the identification of the person in that photo, nor is it an identification of the individual that's seated before me in the court.

¶ 5      It is also argued that the fact that the person before me rose when the name Tamra Williams was called is evidence that she is, indeed, Tamra Williams; however, with all respect to the Crown, I disagree with that submission. I can only consider, in my view, as evidence what is put before me during the course of the trial; in other words, what is called by the Crown or the defence during the course of their respective cases. The fact that the person responded to the name of Tamra Williams when it was called is not evidence, in my view, that was put before me during the course of the trial.

¶ 6      Further, even if I'm incorrect in that conclusion, I still do not find that the fact that she rose when the name was called is evidence of her identity. All that her response shows is that she is aware that she was charged under this name, but not that Tamra Williams in fact is her name, and as such I find that there is no evidence before me upon which I could find her guilty and therefore I grant the defence motion for the directed verdict. The charge is dismissed.

QL UPDATE:  20051026
qp/s/qw/qlcct