The appellant appealed a sexual assault conviction arising from a motel room encounter where the central issue was consent and credibility.
The court held that the trial judge erred by instructing the jury that a deliberately false explanation could be used as circumstantial evidence of guilt without first requiring extrinsic or independent evidence that the explanation was concocted.
Given the nature of the case, the jury's difficulties, and the risk that the burden of proof was distorted, the curative proviso could not be applied.
The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.
