Peter J. Wilson

The accused was convicted of second degree murder following a third trial.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge erred by failing to provide a limiting instruction on the use of prior consistent statements admitted during the re-examination of a key Crown witness.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction.

The Court held that while the prior consistent statements were improperly admitted, the error was harmless and the curative proviso applied.

Furthermore, because the statements had no probative value and did not bolster the witness's reliability, no limiting instruction was required.

The accused and a co-perpetrator participated in a violent beating that left the victim dead.

The accused stomped on the victim's head.

At trial, the Crown's medical expert initially testified the accused caused the death, but later agreed with the defence expert that the co-perpetrator caused the fatal injuries.

The Crown maintained its theory but also argued co-perpetrator liability.

The accused was convicted of second degree murder.

The Court of Appeal substituted a manslaughter conviction, finding the murder verdict unreasonable.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, reaffirming the Yebes test that the reasonableness of a verdict is a question of law.

The Court held that a properly instructed jury could reasonably have found the accused had the requisite intent for murder as a party to the offence, and restored the second degree murder conviction.