The appellant appealed his first-degree murder conviction, arguing that DNA evidence obtained from discarded chewing gum and a subsequent blood sample should have been excluded.
The police had tricked the appellant into chewing and discarding gum to obtain his DNA after he refused to provide a sample.
The Court of Appeal held that while the warrantless seizure of the gum violated section 8 of the Charter, the evidence was admissible under section 24(2).
The court also dismissed grounds of appeal relating to the voluntariness of a police statement and the jury instruction on reasonable doubt, finding any errors to be harmless or in substantial compliance with legal standards.
The appeal was dismissed.
