The appellant was convicted of first degree murder based entirely on circumstantial evidence, including hair comparison, DNA, identification, and after-the-fact conduct.
On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in admitting prejudicial hair comparison evidence and in instructing the jury on identification and after-the-fact conduct.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in admitting type 2 hair comparison evidence without confirming DNA, failing to properly instruct the jury on the limitations of the hair evidence, improperly leaving worthless identification evidence to the jury, and erroneously instructing the jury that they could infer guilt from a concocted alibi and ambiguous after-the-fact conduct.
A new trial was ordered.
