The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault, forcible confinement, and breaking and entering, relying on fresh evidence and asserting ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Court of Appeal found that while fresh expert evidence showed the blood pattern on the screen door was not caused by a baseball bat, the presence of the appellant's blood and fingerprints inside the house and on the door provided ample evidence of his participation.
The court also rejected the ineffective assistance claim regarding a height disparity, noting it was a deliberate tactical decision by trial counsel.
The application to adduce fresh evidence and the appeal were dismissed.
