The Crown brought a pretrial motion to admit fingerprint evidence obtained during a prior investigation of a break-in for which the accused was previously acquitted.
The Crown argued the evidence was necessary for the narrative of the police investigation.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the prejudicial effect of admitting evidence of prior discreditable conduct far outweighed its probative value, as it risked the jury engaging in impermissible propensity reasoning.
The court permitted the Crown to lead only a neutral statement regarding the reopening of the investigation.
