The appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in cocaine, arguing the trial judge erred in charging the jury on party liability and that the Crown unfairly cross-examined him.
The Court of Appeal held that while the instruction on party liability may have been an error, it occasioned no substantial wrong because the jury still had to find the appellant made an offer to sell.
The court also found the cross-examination regarding police fabrication and breach of bail conditions was proper in context and relevant to credibility.
The appeal was dismissed.
