This ruling addresses the admissibility of graffiti found on the exterior walls of a building where a murder occurred.
The accused, charged with second-degree murder, sought to exclude these writings from evidence, arguing they were irrelevant and highly prejudicial.
The Crown contended the writings were relevant to the accused's state of mind, either as a principal or an aider, by demonstrating animus towards the deceased or knowledge of a co-accused's intent.
The court found that the evidence, primarily a security camera video, was insufficient to connect the writings to the accused or his co-accused, rendering them logically irrelevant.
Furthermore, even if relevant, their probative value was extremely slight and significantly outweighed by the risk of moral and reasoning prejudice, given their discreditable and potentially confusing nature.
The court excluded the evidence, noting the ruling was provisional and could be revisited if the evidentiary record changed.