Michelle Fuerst

The appellant, who had suffered years of severe abuse from her common law husband, shot and killed him.

At trial, she relied primarily on self-defence and led expert evidence that she suffered from battered woman syndrome.

She was convicted of second degree murder.

On appeal, she argued that the trial judge failed to adequately instruct the jury on how the expert evidence related to the law of self-defence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that while the jury charge was not perfect, it adequately conveyed the principles from R. v. Lavallee and left the jury with a sufficient understanding of how the battered woman syndrome evidence applied to the elements of self-defence.

The appellants were convicted of second degree murder.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of two unsavoury witnesses who had strong motivations to lie.

The trial judge failed to give a clear, sharp Vetrovec warning regarding their testimony, failed to instruct the jury on the limited use of a highly prejudicial letter written by one of the witnesses, and failed to instruct the jury on the use of prior inconsistent statements.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeals and ordered a new trial, finding that the cumulative effect of these errors could not be cured by the proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, as there was a reasonable possibility the verdict would have been different but for the errors.