The appellant appealed a second degree murder conviction arising from a fatal confrontation in his residence, where he asserted self-defence and the trial judge left provocation with the jury.
The Court of Appeal held that the self-defence charge was adequate, but found reversible error in the response to the jury's question on provocation and in the treatment of after-the-fact conduct because the jury was not properly instructed on innocent explanations and conduct consistent with innocence.
The court further held that Crown counsel's cross-examination was repeatedly improper, including questioning on silence, disclosure, and criminal record details, and that the curative instructions did not adequately remove the prejudice.
Considering these errors cumulatively, the court concluded the appellant did not receive a fair trial and ordered a new trial.
