Criminal Law

R. v. Dimitrov

In the early morning of February 21, 1996, Hristo Veltchev was murdered in the garage attached to his home. Dimitre Dimitrov, a boarder in the house, was charged with his murder and convicted by a jury. The central issue at his trial was the identity of the killer. The Crown called Sgt Robert Kennedy as an expert in footwear and barefoot impressions in shoes. Sgt Kennedy testified that a pair of boots found inside the front hall closet of the house, spattered with the victim's blood, were "likely" worn by the appellant.

Apart from Sergeant Kennedy's evidence, there was no evidence that the appellant owned the boots or that they belonged to him. Those who testified on this point said that they had never seen the appellant wear the boots. All residents of the home used the front hallway closet in which the boots were found.

On appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal, the accused argued that the trial Judge erred in admitting Sgt. Kennedy's evidence in relation to barefoot impressions.

The Court of Appeal agreed, holding that the trial judge erred in admitting the evidence. The Court concluded that, where evidence simply shows that an accused person's footprint is "similar to" the barefoot impression in a boot or shoe, without corroborating evidence that the footwear belonged to the appellant and was worn at the time of the offence, the evidence ought not to be admissible as positive identification. Further, the Court held, the slight probative value of Sgt. Kennedy's evidence was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. As a result the Court overturned Dimitrov's conviction and ordered a new trial. At his new trial, Dimitrov was found not guilty by a jury.

The appellant was represented by Frank Addario and Vanora Simpson.

Click here to read the Court's decision