The appellant appealed conviction and sentence, arguing error in the admission and use of a letter, improper reliance on sexual activity evidence as bad character evidence, and unfair cross-examination.
The court held that although the Crown had no basis to tender the letter in its case in chief, no prejudice resulted because the appellant would inevitably have testified and the letter could then have been used in cross-examination.
The court further found the trial judge used the impugned evidence only in assessing credibility and not for propensity reasoning.
The appeal was dismissed.
