R v Spotted Eagle, 2022 MBCA 75

Citation: R v Spotted Eagle , 2022 MBCA 75 Date: 20220920 Docket: AR22-30-09724 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Madam Justice Freda M. Steel Madam Justice Janice L. leMaistre Madam Justice Karen I. Simonsen BETWEEN : HIS MAJESTY THE KING ) T. P. Sandulak ) for the Appellant Respondent ) ) D. A.

Manning - and - ) for the Respondent ) DION TRENT SPOTTED EAGLE ) Appeal heard and ) Decision pronounced: ( Accused ) Appellant ) September 20, 2022 LEMAISTRE JA (for the Court): [ 1 ] The accused appeals his conviction for possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , SC 1996, c 19 . He seeks to have the conviction set aside or, in the alternative, a conviction for simple possession substituted. [ 2 ] After removing the accused from the back seat of a taxi, the police arrested him on outstanding warrants.

While searching him, they found 20.98 grams of methamphetamine, two cellphones and cash. The accused had $77 in a wallet in his jacket pocket and $15 in his pants pocket. [ 3 ] The police also searched a backpack that they had observed the accused place into the rear hatch of the taxi just before getting in.

The backpack contained an operational digital scale contaminated with methamphetamine and a 4.5-inch metal pipe which held a 12-gauge shotgun cartridge, as well as additional materials to make a gun. [ 4 ] In the rear seat of the taxi where the accused had been sitting, the police found a pill bottle containing 15 quarter- gram rocks of crack cocaine.

Notably, the police did not find any paraphernalia for using drugs during their search. [ 5 ] In addition to the charge of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, the accused was also charged with, and convicted of, offences related to his possession of the crack cocaine and ammunition.

He does not appeal those convictions. [ 6 ] The accused argues that the trial judge failed to apply the test from Villaroman (see R v Villaroman , 2016 SCC 33 at para 55 ) and erred by rejecting his argument that there were reasonable inferences available on the evidence inconsistent with possession of the methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking as speculative.

He also argues that the evidence was insufficient to found a conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking, that the verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the defence theory. [ 7 ] We are not persuaded that the trial judge erred. He clearly understood the applicable legal test for determining guilt based on circumstantial evidence.

He demonstrated his understanding of the requirement to consider other available inferences inconsistent with guilt when, citing Villaroman at para 41 , the trial judge stated, “In order to prove this charge beyond a reasonable doubt, the Crown must establish that the evidence . . . ‘[a]ssessed in light of human experience should be such that it excludes any other reasonable alternative.’” [ 8 ] When read in context, the trial judge’s reasons demonstrate that he considered the defence theory that the accused possessed the methamphetamine for personal use, and, in our view, his rejection of it as speculative was reasonable on the evidence.

The evidence established that the accused possessed a quantity of methamphetamine inconsistent with personal use, a scale contaminated with methamphetamine, two cellphones, cash in two places and raw materials to make a gun, but he did not have any paraphernalia for using

drugs.

This evidence reasonably supports the trial judge’s conclusion that the accused possessed the methamphetamine for the purposeof trafficking. [9] Moreover, the accused did not testify or call any evidence that would support alternative inferences inconsistent withguilt (see R v Noble, (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 874 at para 103; see also R v Oddleifson (JN), 2010 MBCA 44 at paras 25-27; R v Banayos and Banayos, 2018 MBCA 86 at para 40; and R v Green, 2019 MBCA 53 at para 67). [10] Looking at the evidence as a whole through the lens of judicial experience, we are satisfied that the trial judge did notengage in illogical or irrational reasoning and that the verdict was one that a properly instructed trier of fact, acting judicially, couldreasonably have rendered (see R v Ong, 2020 MBCA 14 at para 7). [11] In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

JA JA JA