The appellant broke into the victim's home, armed himself, and waited for the victim to return before shooting him multiple times.
At trial, the appellant claimed he did not intend to kill the victim and that money found on him came from social assistance.
The Crown adduced rebuttal evidence showing he never received social assistance.
The appellant was convicted of first degree murder.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the rebuttal evidence was admissible because it related to an essential issue (the robbery) and the Crown could not have foreseen the appellant's testimony.
The Court also found the jury was properly instructed on planning and deliberation, and that there was no air of reality to a manslaughter defence.
