The appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking cocaine and the forfeiture order regarding his vehicle.
He argued that the trial judge erred in admitting statements made by his co-accused and in using the co-accused's post-arrest videotaped statement.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the co-accused's statements were admissible as declarations made in furtherance of a conspiracy, as they were intended to explain delivery arrangements to an undercover police officer.
The court also held that the trial judge properly used the videotaped statement solely to assess the co-accused's credibility.
The sentence appeal regarding the forfeiture order was abandoned.
