R. v. J.G.

(Strathmore Court of Justice - Uttering threats/Criminal Harassment). The defence of alibi is triggered when the accused asserts that he or she could not have committed the offence because he or she was no where near the crime scene. In JG's case, the complainant alleged that JG drove by a private dwelling, pointed a weapon that appeared to be a firearm and drove off. The prosecution's case was driven by both Ring Camera footage depicting the front driveway and a video taken by the complainant. The complainant asserted that the vehicle was the accused's vehicle and that person driving the truck was the accused. JG immediately disputed this claim.

The defence of alibi is somewhat unique in criminal law because it requires the accused to give timely notice to the Prosecution of the defence. The purpose for this is to permit both the Crown and Police the opportunity to investigate the veracity of the alibi claim. An important consideration for any accused considering the alibi defence is to remember that if the police are able to demonstrate that the claim of alibi was false, an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused. This did not dissuade JG -- who was adamant that there was an incorrect eyewitness identification but that the complainant was actually fabricating a story due to JG being a witness against the complainant's family member in an unrelated case.

The evidence told a clear story. Firstly, all of the video clearly demonstrated that while a truck slowed down in front of the complainant's residence, it was too dark to make an identification. Additionally, though the police claimed that the truck matched the description of JG's vehicle, and even went so far to claim that they snapped a photo of JG's truck while it was parked outside the police detachment after JG voluntarily attended the police station, after finally obtaining the photo taken by the officer (delayed disclosure), the Defence could clearly see that the truck -- other than being pickup -- did not come close to matching the description of JG's vehicle 

JG's Calgary Criminal lawyer made him aware that when investigating alibi, the police would likely obtain cellular telephone records and cell tower ping logs to show the location of JG's mobile device. That did not dissuade JG. The police did exactly this. Cell tower pints demonstrated that JG's phone was nowhere near the complainant's home.

Finally, JG had support of another witness who confirmed unequivocally, in a detailed fashion that JG was with her.

As a result of all of the evidence, including a recognition that the complainant may have falsely accused JG because of the unrelated case for which JG was a witness, the Crown eventually WITHDREW the charges. 

What is interesting in JG's case is whether the complainant/witness committed an intentional public mischief. "Public mischief" occurs when a person falsely reports a crime to the police. Public mischief also occurs in incidents where a prankster "swats" a person or a home. Swatting is serious kind of public mischief that intentionally seeks to trigger a tactical response that often results in police conducting unannounced forced entry into homes. All public mischief is serious because the act could result in an innocent person being charged, prosecuted, potentially home invaded by police and even convicted of a crime. 

There are many Calgary criminal lawyers to choose from. Not all criminal defence lawyers in Alberta are the same. While there are a lot of very good criminal defence lawyers in the Province, there are also a lot with questionable experience. If you have been charged with a criminal offence, it is important to exercise all due diligence before retaining your defence lawyer of choice. David Chow is a former Prosecutor who has been doing criminal defence work exclusively since 2005.  David routinely defends cases such as uttering threats, harassment, public mischief and serious crimes of violence. David offers a one-time free telephone consultation.