The appellant challenged a conviction for sexual assault, arguing error in admitting a prior sexual-assault conviction as similar fact evidence on identity and in restricting a voir dire challenge to that prior verdict.
The Court held that a prior conviction can constitute reliable 'some evidence' linking an accused to similar act conduct when identity is put in issue.
It further held that while challenges to prior convictions are not categorically barred at the voir dire stage, they may be limited where there is no reasonable likelihood of affecting admissibility.
The Court found no reversible error in the trial judge's admissibility ruling or ultimate identity finding on the trial record.
