Jennifer McLean

The Crown sought to admit expert opinion evidence from a forensic scientist regarding DNA and body fluid analysis.

The court admitted the expert evidence, finding it met the Mohan criteria and the White Burgess balancing test.

Subsequently, the accused brought an application to exclude fresh forensic evidence obtained during a trial adjournment, arguing late disclosure impaired his right to make full answer and defence under section 7 of the Charter.

The court granted the application, excluding the fresh evidence from the Crown's case-in-chief due to the prejudice caused to the accused's cross-examination strategy, though noting the ruling could be revisited if the defence called evidence.

In a murder prosecution arising from a fatal shooting during a robbery at an illegal poker tournament, the moving party sought exclusion of DNA evidence found on a revolver that was not the murder weapon.

The Crown argued the evidence linked the moving party to the person controlling a cache of firearms that included the murder weapon and corroborated a Vetrovec witness.

The court held the inferential gap was too large because the DNA showed only that the moving party touched or handled the revolver at an unknown time and under unknown circumstances, and the revolver was found in a separate locker.

The evidence carried a real risk of impermissible propensity reasoning and its prejudicial effect outweighed its limited probative value.

The application to exclude the DNA evidence was granted.