It's now up to visiting territorial court Judge Cunliffe Barnett to decide the fate of a local man charged with robbery.

Gordon Bill stands charged with robbing William O'Connell in the apartment O'Connell was staying in, last March 15.

Bill also faces a charge of break and enter.

On Thursday, however, Crown prosecutor Noel Sinclair said the Crown will only proceed with the robbery charge given the evidence that's come forward at trial and that the robbery also includes information about the assault with a bat against O'Connell.

Defence lawyers opted not to bring forward any witnesses Thursday, with both the Crown and the defence moving forward to their closing arguments.

Both Sinclair and defence lawyer Emily Hill asked that Barnett consider the totality of the evidence, with Sinclair urging a finding of guilty while Hill argued for a finding of not guilty.

The evidence presented must leave the court with a reasonable doubt, Hill argued, pointing to case law a number of times throughout her arguments.

There is no doubt, she said, that O'Connell was assaulted in his apartment on the evening of March 15, but the evidence in no way supports the suggestion that the argument with Bill had anything to do with it.

Case law points to four factors that have arisen in cases of wrongful conviction based on identification.

They include police focusing early in the case on only one suspect, relying heavily on eyewitness evidence of only a short time when there's heightened emotion, a police line-up process which falls short of recommended standards, and finally a case resting primarily on confidence in court identification.

'In my submission, all of these elements are at play,' she told the court.

The court heard over the two days of evidence that RCMP officers involved in the case were informed early on that Bill was a suspect.

That included Const. Jeff Monkman, who conducted a photo line-up with O'Connell, who gave a statement to police about the incident the following day, Hill pointed out.

While she said Monkman didn't intentionally try to get O'Connell to pick out the photograph of Bill, she pointed out he didn't stop the line-up process when O'Connell first indicated he thought it was another man.

It was only later when O'Connell selected another photo and handed over the envelope with the picture to Monkman that it ended.

He also told O'Connell he could choose either one or none.

Hill suggested the line-up procedure should have ended when O'Connell picked the first picture.

During his testimony, Monkman explained he thought O'Connell had been talking to himself when he selected the first picture.

It appeared O'Connell was anything but certain in selecting a photo from the line-up, she said.

'It falls well-short,' she said.

Sinclair argued O'Connell took a long time more than 20 minutes to decide on a photo because he was being careful in finding the right person.

The defence lawyer pointed out no blood was ever collected at the apartment where the assault happened. Nor did police search for the clothes the attacker was described as wearing when they arrested Bill, she said, arguing that once RCMP identified Bill as a suspect they stopped looking for anyone else.

Sinclair later pointed out there was no evidence to determine whether blood may have been collected.

While Sinclair argued that O'Connell's description of the attacker was collaberated by the first RCMP officer O'Connell gave a description to, Hill noted the only light on during the robbery came from the television set.

O'Connell never mentioned the acne scars evident on Bill's face to police. As well, at one point when he was looking at a picture during the photo line-up, he said the man's face he saw the night before 'wasn't that messed up,' she pointed out.

Sinclair argued during his closing submissions though the light from the television wouldn't have made the scars evident.

While O'Connell had a good enough view to recognize the suspect, the fact he didn't see scars on the man's face is understandable, given the bad lighting situation, the lawyer argued.

In looking at the police photo line-up, Hill told the court it's evident from the video that O'Connell had two photographs out at once, which goes against procedure.

While Monkman quickly informed O'Connell he could only look at one at a time, she noted the two photos were still being used in a comparison.

Hill also pointed to what she described as 'significant' inconsistencies between O'Connell's original statement to police and his court testimony.

For instance, he told police the door had been deadbolted shut, but in court stated it was left unlocked.

Similarly, he originally said the fight between himself and the other man started when he told the man he had found in the apartment to 'get the f- out,' while in court he said it began after the two had talked and he started looking for his cigarettes.

'He says that several times in his statement,' Hill said.

Sinclair asked that Barnett also consider the evidence of Bill's father, Fred Blanchard, as key in the case because it places Bill at the apartment building on the same evening.

Hill suggested not much weight should be given to it because he was often confused and unsure, and he had information from other sources.

At one point during the trial, Blanchard had to be cross-examined by Sinclair about a statement he gave to police due to his conflicting testimony.

Sinclair said Thursday while Blanchard could not be called a 'friendly witness,' it was likely because the man wants to help his son and he was faced with his statement to RCMP.

'He was in a difficult situation, Mr. Blanchard was,' Sinclair said.

While Bill had wounds to his head consistent with those of the fight, he had told his parents earlier in the night someone had hit him. Sinclair said Bill likely didn't want to tell his parents of the robbery.

Hill also noted the evidence that Bill had suffered from broken ribs earlier, with his parents testifying he was still having trouble getting around at the time.

They also told the court they did not know their son to ever wear jeans, as the attacker was described by O'Connell as wearing.

With both lawyers wrapping up their argument, Barnett ordered the case to come back Monday when he will have a better idea about when he will hand down a decision.