Recent Cases at Tanner Hinman Law

R. v. R. (T.), 2019, Nelson

After a home invasion and assault by two masked individuals, the complainants identified T. R., whom they knew from previous encounters, as one of the assailants. T. R. was found not guilty of the charges after Tanner’s successful cross-examination of the complainants demonstrated there was reasonable doubt about the reliability of their identification evidence.

R. v. W. (S), 2023, Rossland

Police search of a vehicle driven by S. W. led to the discovery of a loaded handgun and large quantities of drugs. S. W. was facing significant jeopardy in the range of 5 years but a successful trial by Tanner resulted in acquittals of all charges.

R. v. K. (S.), 2023, Cranbrook

Tanner’s client was identified by various witnesses as concealing a firearm in public before stashing it in the back of a pickup truck. Police did discover a firearm in said truck and arrested Tanner’s client nearby. He was charged with a variety of offences but found not guilty after trial.

R. v. P. (R.), 2023, Nelson

P. R. was represented by different counsel at trial and was convicted of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. Tanner was retained for the sentencing hearing and was able to successfully argue for a 2-year house arrest wile the Crown had argued for 2.5 years of actual jail. House arrest rather than an actual jail sentence is a rare outcome for fentanyl trafficking cases.

R. v. W. (K.), 2023, Cranbrook

Tanner’s client was charged with driving while prohibited and various firearms possession charges after the discovery of multiple firearms in the back of the SUV he was in. After trial, he was only convicted of driving while prohibited and acquitted on the much more serious firearms charges.

R. v. W. (S.), 2025, Rossland

Tanner’s client was acquitted of assault and sexual assault. His cross-examination of the complainant and introduction of defence evidence led the trial judge to have reasonable doubts about the credibility and reliability of the complainant witness.

R. v. M. (J.), 2025, Invermere

Unfortunately, J. M. was found guilty of sexual assault after trial. You can’t win them all. The Crown sought a jail sentence but Tanner was able to successfully argue for a term of house arrest, a rare outcome for sexual assault convictions in the past few years.

R. v. D. (A.), 2025, Invermere

After a divorce and ongoing family court proceedings, Tanner’s client was accused by his ex-wife of sexually assaulting her years earlier. These types of trials can become exceedingly complex with the modern rules of evidence and procedure for sexual assault trials as well as the amount and types of evidence available from this type of relationship between the accused and complainant. Tanner’s skill in navigating the process and conducting the trial resulted in a not guilty verdict for his client.

R. v. G. (V.), 2025, Cranbrook

Tanner’s client had his home raided by police and was facing 8 charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking in various illicit drugs as well as firearms possession. Tanner was able to negotiate a guilty plea to 3 of the 8 charges and proceeded to a contested sentencing hearing. The Crown was seeking 7 years in jail but Tanner successfully argued for a much shorter sentence of 4.5 years.

Tanner Hinman Law

PO Box 201

Kimberley, BC V1A 2Y6

250-602-0020

law@tannerhinman.com

Hours:

Monday to Thursday

8:00 AM to 4:00 PM.

Meetings by appointment.

Contact