The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after shooting his wife.
At trial, he raised the defence of not criminally responsible (NCR) under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.
The defence called three psychiatrists who testified that the appellant suffered from a mental disorder, while the Crown called no psychiatric evidence.
The appellant appealed the conviction, arguing the jury's guilty verdict was unreasonable as it conflicted with the uncontradicted expert evidence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the jury was entitled to reject the factual underpinnings of the experts' opinions, which were based largely on the appellant's own statements, and to rely on other evidence surrounding the shooting to conclude the NCR defence was not established.
