The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings that prevented a fourth trial of the respondent for first degree murder.
The respondent's first trial resulted in a conviction that was overturned on appeal, and his second and third trials ended in hung juries.
At the second and third trials, the judge excluded evidence that a 911 call containing details known only to the killer had been traced to a payphone near the respondent's workplace.
The Court of Appeal held that the 911-trace evidence should have been admitted under the principled approach to hearsay, as it met the requirements of necessity and threshold reliability.
Because the Crown was denied a full opportunity to present its case due to the erroneous exclusion of this highly probative evidence, the Court found that a fourth trial would not constitute an abuse of process.
The stay was set aside and a new trial ordered.
