The appellant appealed a jury conviction for second degree murder and the 14-year parole ineligibility period.
The court held that an unavailable witness’s prior statement was admissible under the principled hearsay exception because necessity and threshold reliability were established, and any possible concern in the jury charge was cured by repeated limiting instructions.
The court also upheld the admission and treatment of evidence concerning refusal to provide biological samples and subsequent conduct involving destruction of saliva evidence as after-the-fact conduct.
In any event, the court held that any assumed errors would have engaged the proviso because the Crown case was overwhelming.
Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal was dismissed.
