Trial ruling was contradictory in considering accused's theory, appeal court finds
The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed an appeal of a firearm possession conviction upon finding that the trial judge made contradictory and conclusory reasons when assessing the accused’s alternative argument regarding another person’s presence in the place of his arrest.
The case of R v Palcon, 2025 ABCA 153, arose from a charge for possessing a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition under s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code. On the day of the appellant’s arrest, he was seated in the driver’s seat of his vehicle, with a female passenger sitting beside him.
Police officers checked the license plate of the vehicle driving in an alleyway, discovered that the driver had an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic offence, arrested him on that warrant, and searched him.
Officers retrieved a green pouch from his jacket that contained heroin and advised him of his right to a lawyer relating to a possible drug offence. They then searched the vehicle and found a bag containing more drugs in the centre console and a loaded 9mm handgun in a handbag in the glove compartment.
The officers also arrested the female passenger, who was released without charges hours later. The officers brought the arrested individuals and the seized property to the police station. Officers rechecked the green pouch and found a 9mm round of the same make and calibre as the ammunition in the gun’s magazine.
The appellant pleaded guilty to drug possession offences. The trial revolved around the issue of whether the Crown could prove that the appellant actually or constructively possessed the gun. The appellant’s defence raised the passenger’s presence in the vehicle for an unknown period before the officers’ arrival as an alternative theory.
A trial judge of the Alberta Court of Justice found the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the firearm charge. The appellant challenged this conviction. On appeal, he raised the following arguments:
The Court of Appeal of Alberta set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial. The appeal court determined that the alternative explanation relating to the passenger’s presence in the vehicle was central to the appellant’s defence.
The appeal court found the trial judge’s reasons contradictory and conclusory when briefly dealing with the passenger’s presence in the vehicle.
The appeal court noted that the judge referred to the passenger’s presence at the outset of his reasons. However, in the judge’s analysis and conclusions, he said, “There is no evidence that the vehicle was occupied or driven by anyone other than the accused.”
The appeal court concluded that this unexplained contradiction prevented it from reviewing the judge’s reasoning concerning the passenger’s presence in the vehicle in connection with the issue of whether the Crown succeeded in showing that the appellant possessed the gun.
