Lucas O'Neil

The defendant applied for a mistrial after the Crown cross-examined him regarding three previous drinking and driving charges during trial on an "Over 80" charge.

The Crown's stated purpose was to establish the defendant's familiarity with the criminal justice system in response to his Charter voir dire evidence regarding his understanding of the right to counsel.

The court found that while the Crown did not act with improper purpose, the questions were highly prejudicial with minimal probative value.

The court declared a mistrial, finding that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed such that a fully informed observer could reasonably conclude the trial was unfair.

The accused, along with three co-accused, was charged with first degree murder and attempted murder arising from a home invasion.

The accused brought a Corbett application to restrict cross-examination on his criminal record, which included five prior convictions for assault.

The Crown and a co-accused brought cross-applications to adduce evidence of the underlying facts of those assaults and other violent conduct as propensity evidence.

The court granted the accused's application, limiting cross-examination to his non-violent convictions, and dismissed the cross-applications.

The court found that the prejudicial effect of admitting the prior violent conduct substantially outweighed its probative value, particularly given the risk of propensity reasoning in a trial involving blunt force trauma.