The appellants, two brothers, were convicted of second degree murder following a joint trial.
The evidence against them included out-of-court statements made to an accomplice.
The appellants appealed their convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in his Vetrovec warning by allowing the jury to use statements admissible against only one accused to bolster the accomplice's credibility against the other.
They also argued the trial judge erred by giving a Duncan instruction, suggesting inculpatory statements carry more weight than exculpatory ones.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, finding the Vetrovec warning was proper and contained adequate cautions.
While the Court held that the Duncan instruction should not be adopted by Canadian trial courts, it concluded the instruction did not mislead the jury in the context of the charge as a whole.
