The appellant was convicted of causing death by criminal negligence after firing a rifle into a lake, resulting in a bullet ricocheting and killing a seven-year-old boy on the opposite shore.
At trial, the Crown introduced evidence from a police officer who conducted an experiment firing the appellant's rifle into the water to demonstrate how bullets ricochet.
The appellant appealed the conviction, arguing the experiment evidence was novel scientific evidence that failed to meet the Mohan criteria for expert opinion.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the officer's testimony was primarily factual observation rather than expert opinion, and was relevant, material, and properly admitted.
