During a second-degree murder trial, the Crown sought to re-examine the sole eyewitness (the accused's wife) by playing portions of her videotaped police statement.
The defence had cross-examined the witness on prior inconsistent statements made during the interview.
The Crown argued the video was necessary to show the witness's highly emotional state and provide context for the inconsistencies.
The court ruled that the Crown could not play all portions showing the witness in distress, as it would be prejudicial and misleading, but permitted the Crown to play the specific portions upon which the witness was cross-examined to provide full context.
