Detective Briggs

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder, arguing the trial judge erred in leaving s. 231(5)(e) of the Criminal Code to the jury, misdirected the jury on planning and deliberation, improperly admitted expert evidence from a detective, and erred in instructing the jury on the common sense inference of intent for a party.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's role in binding and shooting the victim in the leg during an unlawful confinement could be regarded as a substantial and integral cause of death under the Harbottle test.

The court also found no errors in the trial judge's instructions on planning and deliberation, the admission of the expert evidence, or the instruction on the common sense inference of intent.

The appellant challenged his conviction on two grounds: the admission of expert evidence from a police detective and an alleged misapprehension of another police officer's evidence.

The court declined to articulate a general rule on admissibility, holding that such determinations must be made case by case under the governing appellate framework.

Because defence counsel had not objected at trial, there was no record to assess relevance or necessity, and the expert evidence did not appear to have unduly influenced the result.

The court also found no misapprehension of the officer's evidence and dismissed the appeal.