The appellants challenged convictions for conspiracy to rob, robbery, and accessory after the fact arising from a violent pizza store robbery committed by co-accused.
The Court of Appeal held that the jury charge was materially deficient because it failed to present the defence theory, failed to relate the evidence to the issues, inadequately instructed on the three-step conspiracy analysis, and did not properly limit the use of co-accused statements and guilty pleas.
Additional errors were found in the response to a jury question, the accessory-after-the-fact mens rea instruction, and the absence of a proper after-the-fact conduct instruction.
Although the refusal of severance disclosed no reversible error, the cumulative charge errors precluded application of the curative proviso.
A new trial was ordered.
