The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference following a jury trial.
On appeal, he argued that the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury to disregard improper submissions made by Crown counsel during closing address, specifically an anecdote about a personal childhood memory unrelated to the evidence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, and the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that although Crown counsel's personal anecdote was improper, it did not render the trial unfair or result in a miscarriage of justice in light of contextual factors including the anecdote's limited prominence, the trial judge's general caution to the jury, and defence counsel's failure to object.
