Madalyn Bavaro

The appellants were convicted of manslaughter and first degree murder, respectively, following a fatal shooting during a home invasion.

On appeal, one appellant argued the trial judge erred in admitting highly prejudicial 'resemblance evidence' from his parents based on a surveillance video.

The other appellant argued the trial judge's W.(D.) instructions were deficient for failing to incorporate exculpatory eyewitness evidence, and that the Crown's closing address improperly denigrated that evidence using inadmissible scientific claims.

The Court of Appeal agreed with both appellants, finding the resemblance evidence inadmissible and the jury instructions combined with the Crown's improper closing address fatal to trial fairness.

Both appeals were allowed and new trials ordered.

The accused was charged with second-degree murder after shooting the victim in a liquor store parking lot following a brief verbal altercation over social distancing.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter, arguing that a combination of provocation (a racial slur and a brandished knife) and marijuana intoxication negated the specific intent for murder.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as not credible, finding that he deliberately followed the victim out of the store with a drawn, illegal handgun to confront him.

The court held that the Crown disproved the defences of provocation and intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt, and found the accused guilty of second-degree murder.