The appellant was convicted of first degree murder.
At trial, the Crown relied on letters written by the appellant in jail, which contained exculpatory statements but were admitted fabrications.
The trial judge instructed the jury that the law presumes any incriminating part of an accused's statement is likely to be true, while excuses carry less weight.
Additionally, the Crown failed to disclose a police interview with a witness who saw the victim's severed head at the apartment of the Crown's key witness.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the jury instruction was improper and the Crown's non-disclosure violated the appellant's right to make full answer and defence.
