The appellant appealed convictions for sexual offences against two child complainants and sought a proportionate sentence reduction if one conviction were overturned.
The court rejected challenges to the jury charge on reasonable doubt, held that any error in admitting two prior discreditable incidents was harmless, and found no reviewable prejudice arising from the treatment of prior statements.
On the second complainant's count, the court upheld admission of a videotaped statement under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code notwithstanding a delay of approximately two years, relying on the evidentiary record explaining delayed disclosure by a timid child witness.
The conviction appeals were dismissed, leave to appeal sentence was granted, and the sentence appeal was dismissed.
