Dr. Sandor Wiseman

The appellant, Jeffrey Mitchell, appealed his convictions for two counts of threatening death and his 90-day conditional sentence and two years probation.

The convictions stemmed from text messages sent to his former wife and her new partner, and a stick figure decal on his truck.

The appellant argued the trial judge improperly relied on propensity evidence, failed to apply the W.(D.) analysis, misapprehended evidence, and applied uneven scrutiny.

He also sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding his dyslexia and reliance on voice-to-text.

The Superior Court dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding the propensity evidence admissible for context, the W.(D.) principles correctly applied (evidenced by an acquittal on one count), no misapprehension of evidence, and no uneven scrutiny.

The fresh evidence application was denied due to lack of cogency and insufficient explanation for its late introduction.

The sentence was deemed reasonable and not manifestly unfit.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder in the death of Karina Neff.

He did not deny killing the deceased but claimed he lacked the mens rea for murder and was therefore guilty of manslaughter.

The appeal raised two issues: (1) whether the trial judge erred in admitting a video-recorded statement of a witness with a disability under section 715.2 of the Criminal Code when the witness could not confirm the truth of the statement from present recollection; and (2) whether the trial judge erred in dismissing an application for mistrial after the Crown made prejudicial remarks in closing address regarding the defence's expert evidence and the issue of intent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the adoption test under section 715.2 is the same as under section 715.1 and does not require present recollection, and that the trial judge properly exercised discretion in refusing a mistrial and addressing any prejudice through corrective jury instructions.