The appellant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder involving two women killed in similar circumstances.
The trial judge admitted similar fact evidence and DNA evidence from hair samples the appellant had voluntarily provided during the investigation of the first murder.
On appeal, the appellant argued the jury should have been instructed to apply the criminal standard of proof to the similar fact evidence, and that the use of his hair samples in the second investigation violated his Charter rights.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a jury may consider similar fact evidence if they conclude on a balance of probabilities that the same person committed the acts, and that the unconditional consent to provide hair samples extinguished any expectation of privacy.
