The appellant, J.M., appealed his conviction for sexual assault, alleging six errors in the trial judge's jury charge.
The grounds of appeal primarily concerned the instructions on the use of DNA evidence, the connection of the defence theory to the facts, the limited use of expert biological evidence, the objective and critical viewing of the complainant's evidence, and whether the appellant knew the complainant did not consent.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the alleged errors, emphasizing that jury charges are assessed functionally and in the context of the trial as a whole.
