Beverly Brown

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder and his parole ineligibility period.

At trial, the appellant raised defences of provocation and lack of intent.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by improperly removing from the jury's consideration acts by the deceased that could amount to wrongful acts for the provocation defence, specifically brandishing a knife and engaging in a physical struggle.

Furthermore, the trial judge failed to direct the jury to evidence supporting the appellant's lack of intent, including expert testimony regarding his mental state.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction on the basis that his roadside statement, made before he was advised of his right to counsel, was improperly admitted.

The Court of Appeal, applying its previous decision in R. v. Huff, held that the statement must be excluded from the evidence available for the Carter defence and credibility assessment.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.