The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, assault, and threatening death, arguing the trial judge erred in answering a jury question during deliberations.
When asked if all twelve jurors had to agree on reasonable doubt, the trial judge answered affirmatively, failing to explain a juror's right to disagree.
The Court of Appeal held that this answer improperly conveyed an obligation to agree on a verdict, contrary to established Supreme Court jurisprudence.
The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.