Stephan Parr brought a motion to exclude certain shoe print evidence from his upcoming jury trial for murder.
The evidence included a police photograph of a shoe impression ("Impression F5") found at the scene, a video/photo of wet shoe impressions allegedly made by Parr, and product evidence from Adidas regarding CF Lite Racer shoes.
The Crown sought to have the jury compare Impression F5 with a product drawing of the shoes to infer Parr's presence at the scene.
The court granted the defence application, excluding the evidence on the grounds that its prejudicial value outweighed its probative value.
The evidence was based on hearsay, lacked a proper foundation (no actual shoes seized, reliance on a product schematic), and the impression itself had poor clarity and discrepancies.
The court found that a lay jury would be unable to make meaningful conclusions from the evidence, and its introduction would distract the jury and lead to impermissible reasoning.
