Video evidence ended up being crucial in the robbery conviction of Dakota Cody Ermine recently in Queen’s Bench court in Battleford.
Ermine was tried and convicted of robbing the Windsor Hotel and Bar in Battleford on Aug. 12, 2016. The decision came down from Justice Brian J. Scherman on March 6.
The crucial issue in the case was determining whether it was Ermine who was the third individual shown in the video footage of the robbery.
Justice Scherman ruled: “I find I am sure and satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused, Mr. Ermine, is the third individual shown in the video footage of the robbery and the individual armed with the sawed off shotgun.”
There was no issue on how many people had robbed the Windsor Bar on the day in question, Aug. 13, 2016. According to the judge’s ruling, four separate surveillance cameras in the Windsor Bar recorded three individuals robbing the bar.
The other two individuals were Corey Soosay and Avery Cutarm, who both previously pled guilty; they both testified at trial. Cutarm now faces charges in connection to a spring 2016 robbery in Landis.
Among several witnesses called by the Crown during the trial were two RCMP officers. According to the judge, the two officers testified that based on their observations of Ermine on Aug. 13 and their review of the surveillance videos, that it was Ermine who was the one carrying a sawed off shotgun in the video footage.
The defence argued the video surveillance footage was the real, and best, evidence of what transpired, “and that I, as the trial judge, need to make my own identification decision,” stated the judge.
“The defence says I may not defer to and rely upon the identification opinions offered by the RCMP officers and that unless I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, based on my own assessment of the videos, that Mr. Ermine is the third individual participating in the robbery, I must acquit.”
Ultimately, the judge agreed with the defence on this issue.
“As argued by counsel, the video footage is real evidence and I, as the trier of fact, must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the robbery charged. Therefore it is incumbent on me to carefully consider the evidence of the video footage. I should not rely exclusively or indeed significantly on the recognition or identification evidence of the police officers. As already mentioned, this is only their opinion. Nonetheless their evidence that they recognize the accused in the video footage is part of the totality of the evidence to consider.”
As well, Justice Scherman noted photos of tattoos on Mr. Ermine’s body were exhibited and entered as Exhibit P3 at trial. These showed extensive tattoos up his left and right arms, and a symbol under Ermine’s left ear bearing a resemblance either to the pi symbol or to the Roman Numeral II in a script style. The back of Mr. Ermine’s hands had a tattoo of the name “Maddison” starting at the outer edge of his right hand and ending at the outer edge of his left hand. The letters “Madd” appeared on the right hand and cover the back of his hand.
Justice Scherman stated he reviewed the video footage in closer detail following the adjournment of the trial, and he was able to replay scenes and stop the video in a freeze frame at selected times.
In observing the footage, Justice Scherman noted the following:
- From Camera 4, a gold colored chain around the individual’s neck was observed;
- From Camera 6, a triangular wedge of hair down the back of the individual’s neck was noted, matching the same description in evidence from an RCMP officer. As well, glints of a gold coloured chain around the individual’s neck were observed;
- From Camera 2, numerous freeze frames of the individual’s right hand coming off the gun barrel displayed a view of the back of the individual’s right hand. Shown behind the first and second knuckles, a tattoo was observed in the images. The judge concluded it was the same as the tattoo of Ermine shown in a photo exhibit.
Justice Scherman stated the “tattoo on Mr. Ermine’s right hand as displayed in Exhibit P3 and observable within the Camera 2 footage is unique.”
Coupled with other evidence, including video footage of the robbery showing two $100 bills and 10s and 20s being handed over, as well as evidence that Ermine was observed by police wearing “long shorts or flood pants, a red and blue coloured basketball jersey, a gold chain and having a unique wedge-shaped haircut down the back of his neck,” among others, the judge ruled he was “satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt” that Ermine was the third individual. He found Ermine guilty of robbery.
Justice Scherman added one final comment in his written decision.
“I add to this judgment an observation directed at the RCMP and Crown. By spending approximately 20 minutes freeze framing the videos I was able to identify the specific frames of the videos providing details from the video footage which were significant in helping me reach the decision I did. The ability to do this was equally available to the police and the Crown; indeed I expect that they had equipment and programs that would permit them to easily produce sequential freeze frame photographs of the crucial parts of the surveillance video footage. I expect that if the police or the Crown had undertaken the effort to do this analysis and presented the relevant evidence, particularly the images of the back of Mr. Ermine’s hand so captured, that the time and expense of this trial would likely have been avoided, or if not avoided run much more efficiently and focused.”
