The accused was acquitted of first-degree murder after the trial judge excluded expert and lay evidence regarding the meaning of a teardrop tattoo the accused obtained after the murder.
The Crown appealed.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in excluding the sociologist's expert evidence by applying the Daubert factors, which are suited for scientific evidence, to non-scientific specialized knowledge.
The trial judge also erred in excluding the lay evidence of gang members regarding the tattoo's meaning within their culture.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.
