The appellant was convicted of robbery, assault, kidnapping, and possession of a weapon.
At trial, the judge required defence counsel to undertake to call police officers to support allegations made during the cross-examination of non-expert witnesses regarding a drug debt motive.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in applying the strict evidentiary rule from R. v. Howard to non-expert witnesses.
However, the Court concluded that the error did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, as the jury heard all relevant evidence and the conduct of the defence was not fundamentally altered.
The appeal was dismissed.
