The appellant appealed a jury conviction for second degree murder arising from a spousal shooting in a case where intent was the sole issue and the Crown’s case was entirely circumstantial.
The majority held that the trial judge erred by providing the deliberating jury with only the Crown’s closing address after the jury requested it, without also providing the defence closing address.
The court found that closing addresses are persuasive advocacy, and fairness required balanced access where the case turned on competing inferences rather than direct evidence.
The majority concluded the imbalance created serious prejudice and that the curative proviso could not be applied.
A dissent would have dismissed the appeal, finding no miscarriage of justice.
