The appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder.
The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of an accomplice and similar fact evidence of two prior incidents involving the appellant.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in admitting the similar fact evidence, as its prejudicial effect outweighed its limited probative value.
The evidence lacked sufficient similarity to the charged offence and posed a significant risk of moral and reasoning prejudice.
The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.
