The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder based entirely on circumstantial evidence.
On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of his false statements to police, bad character evidence, and a hearsay statement, as well as in admitting evidence from a warrantless search of his truck.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misdirected the jury on how to use the false statements as evidence of fabrication, improperly admitted highly prejudicial bad character evidence without a limiting instruction, and erred in admitting the hearsay statement.
Although the warrantless search violated section 8 of the Charter, the evidence was admissible under section 24(2).
However, the cumulative effect of the other errors required a new trial.
