The appellants were convicted of first degree murder.
Following the murder, they fled the jurisdiction, committed two bank robberies, violated parole, fled from police, and attempted to dispose of the murder weapon.
At trial, they argued this post-offence conduct was explained by the robberies and parole violations, and thus had no probative value regarding the murder.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that because the appellants denied any involvement in the murder, their identity was in issue, and the post-offence conduct was relevant and properly left to the jury.
The Court further held that the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies only to the ultimate verdict, not to individual items of circumstantial evidence such as post-offence conduct.
