The appellant, Trae Worrie, appealed his convictions for second-degree murder and attempted murder, arguing he was Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder.
Two forensic psychiatrists unanimously opined he was NCR, but the trial judge rejected this defense, finding him guilty.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge materially misapprehended expert evidence, particularly concerning a psychologist's testimony, and misused the appellant's after-the-fact conduct.
The court concluded there was no rational basis to reject the unanimous expert opinion that the appellant was NCR.
The appeal was allowed, convictions set aside, and a verdict of NCR was substituted.
