The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after the victim was found killed in his garage.
The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, eyewitness identification of a man driving the victim's car, and expert evidence matching the appellant's barefoot impressions to blood-spattered boots found at the scene.
On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in his instructions on eyewitness identification and in admitting the barefoot impression evidence.
The Court of Appeal held the eyewitness instructions were proper but found the trial judge erred in admitting the novel expert evidence regarding barefoot impressions, as its slight probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.
