The appellant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm and choking with intent to commit an indictable offence.
At trial, the Crown called rebuttal evidence to counter the appellant's alibi, which also served as similar fact evidence going to identity.
The appellant appealed, arguing the Crown improperly split its case, the verdict was unreasonable, and the Crown abused its stand-by power to empanel an all-female jury.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the Crown improperly split its case by adducing evidence in rebuttal that should have been presented in its case in chief, prejudicing the defence.
