IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]           THE COURT:  The accused, Thom Van Ngo, is charged that on or about March 27, 2017, at or near Abbotsford, in the Province of British Columbia, did unlawfully produce marihuana and did unlawfully possess marihuana for the purpose of trafficking.

[2]           The Crown must prove all elements of each offence beyond a reasonable doubt.  Most of the Crown's case went into evidence by way of an agreed statement of facts.  They also called an expert witness, Sgt. Scott, who was qualified to give expert evidence in the areas of production, price, packaging, distribution and use of cannabis marihuana.

[3]           The accused testified in his own defence and called two supporting witnesses.  The onus of proof never shifts to the accused.  The principles of R. v. W. (D.) apply in this case.  These principles are as follows: 

[4]           I will now summarize the evidence of the Crown.  On March 27, 2017, members of the Abbotsford Police Department executed a search warrant at 2575 James Street, Abbotsford, British Columbia.  Prior to the execution of this warrant, the accused left the residence, entered a vehicle in the driveway, and drove away from the residence.  This vehicle was stopped by the police.  In the vehicle police located 29 garbage bags which contained potting soil in the shape of pots, and some contained marihuana clippings.

[5]           The accused was in possession of the garage door opener to the residence, keys to the residence, and he provided the alarm code for the residence to the police.

[6]           The residence was searched by the police pursuant to the valid search warrant.  The residence was found to be devoted to the production of marihuana.  The police found and seized a total of 723 plants in various stages of growth.  This was a three-stage marihuana production operation with clones, vegetative and budding plants.  The police also found all the requisite electrical equipment, lights and apparatus required for an ongoing grow operation.  The marihuana plants had been freshly watered, and no persons were located in the residence.

[7]           The accused is the registered owner of the residence.  In a drawer in the kitchen upstairs cabinetry was located the accused's VISA receipts for the purchase of construction supplies and materials with dates from June 16 to July 26, 2016.  There were also documents found relating to a fertilization schedule in a foreign language.  In a cupboard downstairs were documents addressed to the accused regarding electrical work that upgraded the house service from 100 amps to 200 amps as per the customer request.  The dates on these documents are between June 7 and June 16, 2016.  At the time of these alleged offences there were no valid licences or authorizations for the possession or production of marihuana at this residence. 

[8]           The expert witness, Sgt. Scott, testified as follows:  A marihuana production like this one that is hand-watered is labour-intensive.  It requires daily or bi-daily attention that includes watering, trimming, feeding, cleaning, etcetera. This was an ongoing three-stage marihuana production operation.  Large electrical power consumption is required to maintain this grow operation.  An average marihuana plant produces three ounces of marihuana bud but there are many variables that could lower or increase yields per plant.  At the material time, the commercial market rate or value of marihuana was $1400 to $2200 per pound, but that depended on the grade of the product.  A heavy recreational user consumes about two grams per day but could be as much as five to eight grams per day.  

[9]           In cross-examination, Sgt. Scott agreed to the following:  That a person avoiding detection by the police would not necessarily leave receipts in his name in the residence as this would not be very smart.  He could express no opinion on amounts of marihuana consumed by medical users of marihuana.  This grow operation was of average sophistication.  More sophisticated grow operations are automated and have ozone generators and air conditioners.  Marihuana plants might only produce one to two ounces of marihuana bud per plant as there are many variables. 

[10]        Sgt. Scott did not express an opinion as to whether this grow operation was for personal use or for trafficking.  That was the evidence of the Crown.

[11]        The defence called three witnesses to testify.  The accused testified as follows:  He is 55 years old and resides in Surrey, British Columbia with his family.  He was born in Vietnam and came to live in Canada in 1984.  He is a Canadian citizen.  He worked in a fish processing plant until the spring of 2016, but due to shoulder and arm pain, his doctor recommended he change employment.  In May or June 2016 to the present, he has worked on an on-call basis making boat covers.  He takes or has taken prescription medication and injections for his pain.  He has a Grade 5 education.  His English language abilities are limited.  He is aware of the medical marihuana licensing scheme and it gives a person a permit to grow marihuana. 

[12]        He purchased the James Street residence as an investment in 2016 with the intention of fixing it up, renting it out, and when the value goes up, to sell it for a profit.  He took possession of the residence in June 2016.  He financed the purchase of the residence from savings and a mortgage.  There was no plan to grow marihuana in the residence. 

[13]        A day after the purchase of the residence he happened to meet his friend, Loc Bui, at a coffee shop.  He told Mr. Bui that he had just purchased a house and he wanted to rent it out.  Mr. Bui said he was looking for a place to rent to grow his medicinal marihuana.  No other effort to find a tenant was made.  Mr. Bui said he had a licence to grow marihuana from the government and the accused said to him, if you have the licence you can go ahead, but you have to fix up any damage caused, and if there are any complaints from neighbours, he would have to stop growing marihuana in the residence. 

[14]        He has known Mr. Bui for six to seven years.  They met at a coffee shop.  By coincidence, Mr. Bui's son was dating his niece who lives with him, and this was going on from around the same time, that being six to seven years earlier.  He trusted Mr. Bui.  Mr. Bui showed him the production licence with his name on it.  This was marked as Exhibit 5 on this trial.  Mr. Bui also showed him a possession licence, and this was marked as Exhibit 6 on this trial.  He did not ask more questions and he did not know much at the time about this.  He accepted the documents as legitimate.  He did not think the grow operation could be illegal due to these documents. 

[15]        The rent charged to Mr. Bui was $2,000 per month starting July 2016.  This rent was ongoing until the police bust in March 2017.  At that time, Mr. Bui stopped paying rent.  The utilities for the residence were in the name of Mr. Bui.  He believes that Mr. Bui set up the grow operation.  He did not assist.  At a later time he was told by Mr. Bui that Mr. Bui had invited another licensed grower to join him at the residence.  Her name is Oanh Kim Thi Dinh.  Mr. Bui also showed him her licence, and it is marked as Exhibit 7 on this trial.  Mr. Bui told him that the grow operation was all legal.  He did not know how many plants were allowed.  He did drop by the house on occasion but did not inspect or count the plants.  He trusted Mr. Bui and Ms. Dinh.  He received some dry shake leaves from Mr. Bui. 

[16]        In December 2016, Mr. Bui told him he had to move out of the residence due to his significant pain and to go back home to live with his family.  Mr. Bui asked him if he would take over the maintenance of the grow operation from him.  He agreed to do so.  Mr. Bui moved out of the residence at the end of December 2016 or the beginning of January 2017, but continued to pay the rent and all the utilities. 

[17]        He was referred by his family doctor to another doctor to obtain a doctor's prescription for medical marihuana.  Dr. Goddard gave him a prescription for 40 grams of marihuana per day.  The form is signed and dated January 11, 2016 but that is clearly an error; it was from January 11, 2017.  He thought he needed the prescription since he was using marihuana for pain relief and he was now working in the grow operation. 

[18]        The agreement with Mr. Bui was that he would receive one-third of the harvest.  After his first harvest he received about three pounds of marihuana. 

[19]        He applied for his own licence to grow marihuana at the residence in January 2017.  This application is marked as Exhibit 9 on this trial.  He thought it should be in his name since he was now working at the grow operation.  Due to the mistaken date on the doctor's form, his application was rejected and had to be re-submitted with an updated form.  The secretary at the doctor's office helped him complete the application.  He did receive an approval to grow marihuana at the residence on July 18, 2017 for 195 plants.  He never used this production licence to grow marihuana at the residence as it had been busted in March 2017. 

[20]        He is unable to read everything on legal documents, but recognizes names and addresses.  He says that a lot of plants died when he was taking care of them.  Mr. Bui and Ms. Dinh taught him how to maintain the grow operation.  He only realized one marihuana crop while he was maintaining it.  He packed it up and delivered it to Mr. Bui's house in Vancouver and then at the house, Mr. Bui divided it up into three shares.  He got one of the shares.  He never sold any marihuana and did not give any away or trade or barter it.  He has no idea how many plants were allowed by the production licences.  When he was stopped by the police, he did not think he was in trouble.  He thought the grow operation was legal.  He understood that the plants were medicinal in nature and therefore legal. 

[21]        He had the electrical service upgraded when he bought the house due to an old heating system that had to be changed.  He wanted to change from gas to electric heating.  On Mr. Bui's production licence he noticed that it was for a grow operation at a different address, but he was told by Mr. Bui that it could not be changed since the office was closed.  It was the same with Ms. Dinh's licence.  He said he did not pay attention to the expiry date on the licence. 

[22]        In cross-examination the accused gave the following additional evidence:  He owns the house in Surrey that he lives in.  It was paid off when he sold another house he had owned.  The James Street residence in Abbotsford was the third house he had purchased.  For James Street, he paid $520,000 with a $400,000 mortgage for financing.  The deposit for the house came from his savings.   The monthly mortgage was $1420.  The renovations that he intended were not done before the tenant moved in except for the garage, some painting, and bathroom plumbing. 

[23]        He is familiar with disclosure forms when you sell a house and he knew he would have to disclose the grow operation.  He also knew that this might impact the property value, but in his view, if good renovations are done it would not lose value, or only very little value. 

[24]        His relationship with Mr. Bui was as friends and they would meet for coffee.  He had never been invited to Mr. Bui's residence before.  He did not know where Mr. Bui was living.  He came up with a rental amount of $2,000 per month based on his expenses of the mortgage and property taxes.  The only research regarding rental values was to ask a neighbour about rents in the area.  He did not tell anyone else besides Mr. Bui that he had a house to rent.  Before he met Mr. Bui he did not know how to grow marihuana and Mr. Bui said it would not cause any damage.  Even after he took over the grow operation he was not concerned about damage to the property as he did not see any.  He believes that his relationship with Mr. Bui was a normal tenancy, even though Mr. Bui had a licence to grow marihuana.  He knows that marihuana is illegal without a licence. 

[25]        Ms. Dinh was the one who gave him the name of the doctor to get a prescription for medicinal marihuana.  He met this doctor by Skype.  Sometimes Ms. Dinh came to the house to work and help him out with the grow operation. 

[26]        Regarding Mr. Bui's permit to grow marihuana, he now sees it is only for 98 plants.  He did not see that before.  He is able to read the dates on the licence, but would not know what it all meant.  He cannot read the word "plants".  It did not occur to him that the date on the production licence was important.  He agreed that his name was not on the licence to grow, but he thought it was okay to continue helping Mr. Bui with Mr. Bui's grow operation.  He did not seek any advice as to the legality of what he was doing. 

[27]        After Mr. Bui left the house, he took over maintaining the grow operation, including the watering, fertilization, clipping, trimming and cleaning.  He agrees that he gave Mr. Bui the marihuana from the harvest since it was Mr. Bui's grow operation.  Even if it was his own production licence, he would have to share with Mr. Bui since the equipment was Mr. Bui's and Mr. Bui was paying the rent.

[28]        Regarding his application to grow marihuana, he did not read it before he signed it.  It was explained to him generally.  He thought that his prescription for marihuana, marked as Exhibit 11 on this trial, allowed him to temporarily grow marihuana until the production licence was obtained. 

[29]        The next witness for the defence was Mr. Loc Bui.  He testified as follows:  He is employed at a cheese-processing plant.  He is a medical marihuana user for pain to his right ankle and leg, and stress.  He had cancer to the right ankle.  In July 2016 he was consuming 20 to 30 ounces per week of marihuana.  He knows the accused since around 1999.  They would see each other at grocery stores or coffee shops.  They became friends.  Also, his son started dating the accused's niece in high school.  They attended the same high school.  This was a coincidence. 

[30]        In the summer of 2016, the accused told him he had a place to rent out.  He told the accused that he had a licence to grow marihuana and needed a place to grow.  He was living in Vancouver at the time and it was hard to rent a place.  They agreed on a rent of $2,000 per month.  He would grow marihuana at the residence and live there.  The grow would be for his own personal use.  The accused said okay to the grow; he did not care about that.  He would be responsible for fixing the house after.  They did not discuss the neighbours.  He showed the accused his grow licence.   They did not discuss the address on the licence.  He did not talk to the accused about the place or office to change the address being closed.  He told him the licence makes the grow legal.  There was no agreement to share the harvest with the accused, but he did give the accused some shake or trim.  He paid the accused $2,000 per month and lived at the grow house off and on since he had a family in Vancouver.  He was responsible for the utilities and paid the bills.

[31]        The hydro bills were filed collectively as Exhibit 13 on the trial, and appear to indicate a security deposit date paid on June 28, 2016 and the account closed effective March 26, 2017.  The bills between June 18, 2016 and March 26, 2017 total approximately $18,000.  He paid all the hydro bills since he was the one to rent the house.  He set up the grow operation with two friends; the accused did not assist.  He invited his friend, Ms. Dinh, to join him in the grow operation as she also had a licence and no place to grow.  He did not tell the accused in advance before inviting Ms. Dinh to join the grow operation.  He told the accused in September or October when the accused came to collect the rent.  He showed him Ms. Dinh's licence at some point.  Ms. Dinh only helped with the grow operation when needed.  He would call her.  He added plants to the grow operation after Ms. Dinh joined, but due to heat, many plants died.

[32]        He had to stop working on the grow operation due to the pain in his leg and he could not carry or lift heavy loads.  He needed to go home to his family.  He asked the accused to take over the maintenance of the grow operation.  He told the accused that the harvest would be split in three ways, and the accused agreed.  He was planning to return to the maintenance of the grow operation when his medical condition improved.  He continued to pay the rent and the grow operation was still his after he left the house as he continued to pay the rent and the bills.  There were so many plants in the house since so many died, so they doubled up.  There was only a 50 percent survival rate. 

[33]        He did not discuss the legality of the number of plants with the accused.  He felt he was still in charge of the grow operation from January to March 2017.  He told the accused that the harvest would be split evenly since all three parties are contributing.  There was one harvested crop from January to March 2017.  He told the accused to bring it to his house.  At the house he split it three ways.  There was only one previous crop before the accused took over.  The second crop total was 12 to 13 pounds and he gave the accused one-third of that.

[34]        In cross-examination, Mr. Bui testified to the following:  The only reason he lived in the residence was to attend to the grow operation.  He has another house in Vancouver where he lives with his family.  He has a wife and two children.  He went back to Vancouver every week.  He never had a grow operation at the residence indicated on the marihuana production licence.  He learned to grow marihuana by helping a friend at his grow operation.  He used his licence to grow with friends at another location.  He is aware that marihuana is illegal if there is no licence.  He does not really understand the specific terms of the licence.  If he has a licence he can grow.  He never read the licence carefully.  He did not know that his grow licence is limited to the location on the licence.  He agreed that both licences, his and Ms. Dinh's, have expiry dates in 2013 and 2014 respectively, but there was no office for him to renew the licences.  He did not call the number on the licences to inquire as his English is not good enough.  He never sought any advice about what the licence said.  He never called a lawyer or Health Canada.  He does not know about the law. 

[35]        The accused did not ask any questions about the licence, but he told the accused that he had a licence and he could grow.  He spent $10,000 to set up the grow operation.  He taught the accused how to grow and left a recipe for him as to how to water the plants.  He taught him all this when the pain in his leg was getting very bad and he had decided he had to leave. 

[36]        In 2016 he harvested 12 pounds and split it with Ms. Dinh; they each received six pounds.   Then they shared in the accused's harvest with one-third each of the 12 pounds that were obtained, so in total there were only two crops.  He was unemployed from July 2016 to March 2017.  He was supported by his family and borrowed money from his son to pay the hydro bills on James Street.

[37]        Ms. Oanh Kim Dinh was the next witness and she testified as follows:  She is from Vietnam and came to Canada in 1993.  She has no English language skills.  She has worked at a bakery for the last two years, fulltime.  She uses medicinal marihuana for pain and numbness to the left side of her body.  She ended up growing plants at James Street because she met Mr. Bui at a coffee shop and he mentioned he had a place to grow marihuana and she could grow there.  She happened to have a licence to grow marihuana at the time.

[38]        She became involved with this grow operation in August 2016.  She showed the accused her licence and told him she can just do it.  She did some cutting, trimming and cleanup.  She was on-call when needed.  Mr. Bui left the grow operation in January 2017 and said he would come back if his leg got better.  She told the accused to update the licence and gave him a phone number to get his own licence.  There was an agreement to split the harvest equally after the accused got involved.  Mr. Bui was still in charge even after he left.  There was just one harvest after Mr. Bui left the house and it was split three ways. 

[39]        In cross-examination she gave the following additional evidence:  She met Mr. Bui about five to six years earlier.  The first time they ever discussed marihuana was in August 2016.  First she told him she had a licence and he said he had a place and asked her to join him.  She was unable to clarify how or why marihuana came up in their conversation.  Mr. Bui told her he had a place to grow first, and then she said she had a licence.  This was just a coincidence.  She paid half the $2,000 rent to Mr. Bui.  The grow operation was legal since she had a licence.  She knows without a licence it is illegal. 

[40]        Her English is not good enough to understand the conditions on her licence. Because she is sick, she is allowed to grow.  She made no efforts to try to understand the conditions of the licence.  She received three pounds of marihuana when the accused was tending the grow.  She got it at Mr. Bui's residence. 

[41]        On behalf of the accused it was submitted that the accused was a credible and reliable witness.  He believed his activities were legal.  This is consistent with no hidden electrical bypass and receipts in the house with his name on it.  The accused was not hiding his involvement as he thought the licences made the activities at the residence, and particularly the plants, legal as medicinal marihuana plants. 

[42]        The Crown must prove the mental element of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt; that is, that the accused committed the prohibited act intentionally or recklessly with knowledge of the facts constituting the offence, or with wilful blindness towards them.  Mere negligence is not sufficient.  Failing to make inquiries that a reasonable or prudent person would make, or who fails to know facts he should have known, is innocent in the eyes of the law.  Both recklessness and wilful blindness include a subjective element of fault and Crown has not proved that element beyond a reasonable doubt.   Regarding recklessness, Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew of the danger that the act could result in the act prohibited by the criminal law, but persist despite the risk.  In other words, it is the conduct of one who sees the risk and takes the chance.

[43]        In assessing an accused's subjective belief in relation to recklessness, the court must take into account an accused's shortcomings and personal circumstances.  If Crown cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused foresaw the risk and proceeded despite it, the accused must be acquitted unless the accused is found to be wilfully blind.  Regarding wilful blindness, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt subjective, deliberate ignorance, or an active, subjective process of suppressing suspicion.  Wilful blindness arises when a person has become aware of the need for some inquiry, but declines to make that inquiry because he does not wish to know the truth.  It is better described as deliberate ignorance. 

[44]        The accused was negligent in his inquiries about the legality of what was occurring on his property, but the Crown has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was reckless or wilfully blind when one considers the accused's trust in people he was dealing with, his level of education and his level of knowledge.  The accused believed the plants were medicinal marihuana and not a forbidden substance.  He believed it was all legal so he was not reckless or wilfully blind.  The accused did not suspect that the medicinal marihuana was prohibited or unlawful, and therefore, did not become aware of the need for further inquiry. 

[45]        If the court accepts that the accused believed the marihuana was lawful, it would be inconsistent to find he was reckless or wilfully blind.  To convict on the issue of knowledge, the evidence must be inconsistent with any other rational conclusion.  The accused did not have knowledge of the illegal nature of the activity necessary to be convicted. 

[46]        The issue to be determined in this case is whether knowledge has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and does not need to be assessed on the issue of mistake of fact, but in the alternative, the accused's belief that the marihuana and growing it was legal was a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law.  The accused believed that there was a medicinal or medical marihuana scheme that if permission from the government was present, it would make it legal to grow marihuana.  As such, he was not mistaken as to the law. 

[47]        The accused allowed Mr. Bui to set up a grow operation in his home.  He was shown the certificates relating to its legality, and he believed that a legal medical marihuana grow was set up.  This amounts to a mistake of fact and is a defence, or at the very least a mistake of mixed law and fact.  The accused relies on R. v. Darqvea (1979) 1979 CanLII 2995 (ON CA), 47 CCC (2d) 567 from the Ontario Court of Appeal where a conviction was overturned where a mistake of fact was not left to the jury. 

[48]        The accused has an honestly held but mistaken belief in the nature of the substance, being medical marihuana, and the nature of the activity, a medical marihuana grow operation, and these are mistakes of fact.  Regarding Count 2 more specifically, defence counsel submits that the Crown has not proved that the possession of marihuana was for the purpose of trafficking.  Sgt. Scott, the expert, did not express an opinion on the issue and could not give evidence on the amounts needed for medicinal or medical marihuana users. 

[49]        Crown counsel submits that the elements of the offences are proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  The accused was the owner and operator of the grow operation, at the very least from January to March 2017.  The grow operation required constant care and attention.  This was not a licensed grow operation, and there was certainly no licence to grow marihuana in the accused's name. 

[50]        Regarding Count 2, possession for the purpose of trafficking, the accused admitted his trafficking on one occasion by delivering the crop to Mr. Bui for distribution into three shares.  The only inference to be drawn is that the accused intended to do so again as he testified that the crop was going to be shared three ways on an ongoing basis.  Moreover, the accused and his witnesses were generally not believable, reliable or credible.  The economics of this enterprise made no sense.  The only reasonable inference to be drawn is that the harvest, be it all or some, would be sold to recoup expenses.  The accused testified that even when he would obtain his own licence to produce, he would continue to share the harvest with Mr. Bui since the equipment belonged to Mr. Bui. 

[51]        The accused was a party to the offences from the onset of the grow operation.  He provided a house, knowing it would impact the ultimate resale value of the house, or the accused aided and abetted the grow operating by upgrading the electricity and buying some construction supplies.  If the accused was mistaken at all, these were mistakes of law and not of fact.  If he was mistaken as to the legal effect of the licences or authorizations to grow, that is clearly a mistake of law.  The accused knew marihuana plants were illegal unless there was a valid licence or authorization.  The licences he relied on were expired and for other addresses.  He says he made no efforts to understand the specifics of the licences.  If this was believed, he was either reckless or wilfully blind. 

[52]        I generally disbelieve the evidence of the accused and his witnesses.   His evidence alone, or combined with other evidence that I accept, does not raise a reasonable doubt.  The foundation of his evidence that he purchased the house in Abbotsford as an investment and immediately rented it out to the first friend that he met in a coffee shop for the purpose of a medicinal grow operation makes no sense and is not believable.  The accused admitted in his evidence that he was aware of the potential impact on the value of the residence by having a grow operation, and was aware of disclosure requirements on sale.

[53]        The accused says he believed the rental market value was $2,000 per month.  The notion that you would rent your house to someone that was likely to cause damage to it as opposed to someone else also makes no sense and is not believable. 

[54]        Within a week or two of taking possession of the property, the accused upgraded the electricity from 100 amps to 200 amps.  Mr. Bui went on the Hydro account by June 28th with the intention of setting up a grow operation.  These two events are not a coincidence.  I reject the accused's evidence that the electrical upgrade was for a new heating system.  I find that the electrical upgrade was put in place to assist the grow operation.

[55]        I accept that the accused has English as a second language and might need assistance in understanding legal documents, but he has been in Canada since 1984, he has had employment in Canada, and the James Street house was the third one he has purchased.  To purchase these houses he had to complete and sign legal documents and is aware of disclosure statements.  I do not accept that he is unsophisticated when it comes to understanding the importance of legal documents. I find as a fact that he knew the licences of Mr. Bui and Ms. Dinh were for a different residence, for a limited number of plants, and had expired.  If he did not know these things, he was either reckless or wilfully blind to them. 

[56]        The accused admitted in his evidence to knowing that marihuana production was illegal without a valid, government-issued production licence.  Although I find that he was not mistaken as to the important specifics of the licences of Mr. Bui and Ms. Dinh, but if he was, that would constitute a mistake of law, not a mistake of fact.  I rely on R. v. MacDonald 2014 SCC 3, R. v. Legrande 2014 ABCA 192, and R. v. Zheng 2015 ONCJ 30, and as is well known, ignorance of the law is not a defence.

[57]        In any event, by January 2017 and up to the day of the execution of the search warrant, the accused was the caretaker of the grow operation.  He was in fact producing the plants himself.  He did not have a licence to produce in his name, and he knew that much at least.  He had the requisite knowledge, care and control of the plants.  He also admitted to harvesting one crop himself and shared it with Mr. Bui and Ms. Dinh, and intended to continue to do so with further crops.  With this evidence, the only reasonable inference that could be drawn is that on March 27, 2017, the date of the execution of the warrant, the accused was in possession of the marihuana exceeding three kilograms (the bulk weight of the marihuana was 68 kilograms) and this was for the purpose of trafficking. 

[58]        The evidence against the accused in this case is overwhelming.  Accordingly, the accused is found guilty on both counts of the Information.