Bruce Johnstone

The appellants were convicted of first degree murder.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of two unsavoury witnesses.

The trial judge gave a Vetrovec warning, instructing the jury to look for confirmation of their testimony.

The appellants appealed, arguing the warning failed to instruct the jury that confirmatory evidence must be independent and material.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that while the warning was not a model to follow, the charge as a whole adequately conveyed the need for special scrutiny and the danger of convicting on unconfirmed evidence.

The Court also applied the curative proviso to an error in the trial judge's instructions on drawing inferences from proven facts.

The accused was convicted of two counts of second degree murder based in part on out-of-court statements made by his spouse to the police.

The spouse was not a competent or compellable witness for the Crown.

The trial judge admitted the statements under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, relying on R. v. Hawkins.

The Court of Appeal ruled the statements inadmissible and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that admitting the spouse's out-of-court statements under the principled exception to hearsay would undermine the spousal incompetency rule and its underlying rationales.

The appellant was convicted of offences arising from three separate gang home invasions.

The Crown alleged the appellant was involved in all three incidents, although membership in the gang rotated.

The trial judge instructed the jury that evidence admitted with respect to each incident was admissible in proving the guilt of the accused on the others.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge erred.

While similar fact evidence of group activities is admissible to identify a gang responsible for a crime, it cannot be used to identify a particular member without an additional link connecting the individual to each crime.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was convicted of several offences arising from three separate gang home invasions.

The trial judge directed the jury that they could consider the evidence from one incident as similar fact evidence to identify the appellant in the other incidents.

The Supreme Court of Canada, applying its concurrent decision in R. v. Perrier, held that the trial judge erred.

The similarities between the incidents demonstrated that the same group likely committed the offences, but did not point to any individual trademark or characteristic identifying the appellant.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.