Elliot Lake man acquitted in two armed robbery cases on same day

Friday the 13th proved to be far from an unlucky day for Alexandre Ethier.

The Elliot Lake resident walked out of the Sault Ste. Marie courthouse a free man — following many months in custody on numerous charges — after two judges in two separate armed robbery trials acquitted him of the charges.

Identity was the key issue in both cases.

Superior Court Justice Edward Gareau dismissed six offences stemming from an Aug. 1, 2018 home invasion that occurred in Elliot Lake.

His decision followed a similar ruling by Superior Court Justice Ian McMillan involving three charges the 25-year-faced in connection with an Aug. 28, 2018 gas bar heist in the city.

The home invasion involved two masked intruders who entered a Hergott Avenue residence in the middle of the night. 

One of the two men living there awoke to an intruder "spraying" his face with a can.

He also was hit in the cheek with a metal pipe, and a safe was taken from his closet.

Drugs, cash and drug paraphernalia were in the home at the time of the robbery, but none of these items were taken.

In a trial that took place Oct. 29 and 30, and Dec. 3, Ethier pleaded not guilty to the six charges, which included counts of administering a noxious substance, stealing the safe while armed with an offensive weapon (bear spray) and break and enter to commit an indictable offence.

Prosecutor David Didiodato called five witnesses, including the complainants and two experts from the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS).

Defence lawyer Jennifer Tremblay-Hall didn't put any witnesses on the stand.

Gareau heard an Ontario Provincial Police officer, who arrived at the home at 4:05 a.m., located a black canister of bear spray outside the front door.

The judge also was told that no mask, balaclava, pipe or weapons of any kind were found at the crime scene.

Dr. Hendrik Dorn, an expert in forensic chemistry, testified about two items — a swab taken from a headboard in the home and an aerosol dispenser — that were examined.

He acknowledged that he couldn't say that the pepper spray on the headboard came from that can. 

Ronald Lai, a CFS scientist, was qualified by the court to give opinion evidence on forensic DNA analysis, including the collection, comparison and transfer of DNA.

He identified the DNA found on the can as belonging to Ethier.

Lai indicated that the testing he performed can't determine how long DNA was on an object.

In what the judge described as "candid" testimony, the expert said he couldn't provide an opinion on how Ethier's DNA came to be on the bear spray can or whether only one person handled it.

In his 10-page decision, Gareau said there is no direct evidence that Ethier was in the home in the early hours of Aug. 1, 2018.

He also said that the Crown is correct that the issue is identity and that the case is a circumstantial one.

On the totality of the evidence, there is no doubt that the home invasion occurred, "the question is whether the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the accused, Alexandre Ethier, who did this."

The judge said he found Lai's evidence to be "candid, impartial and extremely balanced."

The scientific evidence, especially by Lai, doesn't support inferences the Crown is asking the court to draw to point to Ethier's guilt, Gareau said.

"It is entirely possible, on Mr. Lai's own evidence, that Mr. Ethier's DNA was deposited on the can of bear spray without him even having handled the can."

Gareau concluded that on the totality of the evidence that he's not sure that Ethier committed the offences.

The fact that the young man's DNA is on the bear spray can found outside the home doesn't lead to the sole inference that he was inside and used it on the complainant, he said.

From the circumstantial evidence, there are other conclusions, other than Ethier's guilt, that can be drawn, Gareau said.

The judge concluded that "on the totality of the evidence" he is left with reasonable doubt.

"In my view, it would be reckless to convict Mr. Ethier solely on the DNA evidence" given the limitations as to what it can and can't show, and its frailties candidly described to the court by Lai, Gareau said.

SooToday will provide further coverage of Superior Court Justice Ian McMillan's decision in a followup story.

EDITOR'S NOTE: SooToday does not permit comments on court stories