The appellant was convicted of first degree murder after the deceased was found strangled in his apartment building.
At trial, the Crown introduced similar fact evidence of a prior sexual assault committed by the appellant against a prostitute four years earlier to prove identity.
The appellant appealed the conviction, arguing the similar fact evidence was improperly admitted and challenging the jury instructions on reasonable doubt and DNA evidence.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the similar fact evidence lacked the high degree of similarity required to prove identity and was highly prejudicial.
