David Finley

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated sexual assault and forcible confinement.

During and after the trial, the jury foreperson participated in a radio broadcast where he made derogatory and homophobic comments about the trial participants and discussed the case.

The majority of the Court of Appeal found that the juror's conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias, necessitating a new trial.

The concurring judge found no reasonable apprehension of bias but agreed a new trial was required because the trial judge failed to adequately instruct the jury against using evidence from one count to support findings on other counts.

The appellant appealed his jury conviction for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm on three grounds: erroneous jury instructions on the fault element, improper Crown conduct during re-examination and closing address, and an erroneous Corbett ruling regarding his criminal record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury instructions for the appellant were separate from the flawed instructions for his co-accused, the Crown's re-examination under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act was permissible, and the trial judge's Corbett ruling was entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms offences and conspiracy to commit unlawful confinement, as well as his ten-year sentence.

He argued there was insufficient evidence he knew about a firearm in the driver's side door pocket of the car he was driving.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the totality of the evidence, including the appellant's possession of other weapons and the proximity of the firearm, proved his knowledge.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court finding the trial judge properly considered the appellant's prior record for similar violent offences and his poor prospects for rehabilitation.

The appellant, an inmate, fatally stabbed a fellow inmate and was convicted of first-degree murder.

At trial, the appellant claimed self-defence and testified to three prior incidents that were never put to the Crown's witnesses during cross-examination.

The trial judge ruled that defence counsel breached the rule in Browne v. Dunn and remedied the breach with a jury instruction rather than recalling the witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was entitled to find a breach of the rule and that the jury instruction was a reasonable and proper remedy in the circumstances.

The appellants appealed their convictions for first and second degree murder arising from a firebombing that killed two children.

The Crown's theory was that the primary appellant orchestrated the arson to silence the children's mother, who had accused him of sexual assault, and hired the other appellants to execute the plan.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's admission of bad character evidence, Vetrovec caution regarding an unsavoury witness, instructions on unlawful object murder, or instructions on post-offence conduct.

The court also upheld the 23-year parole ineligibility period for the appellant convicted of second degree murder.