The appellant was convicted of first degree murder.
During an undercover operation, he confessed to police officers posing as members of a criminal organization who claimed they could use corrupt police contacts to influence the murder investigation.
The trial judge admitted the statements without a voluntariness voir dire, finding the undercover officers were not 'persons in authority'.
The trial judge also excluded defence evidence suggesting a third party committed the murder due to an insufficient connection to the crime.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the undercover officers were not persons in authority because the appellant believed they were acting against the state's interests, and that the third-party evidence was properly excluded as lacking probative value.
