The appellant challenged a criminal conviction on the grounds that the verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge erred in refusing a mistrial.
The court held that, although the case was circumstantial, the cumulative effect of the evidence, particularly the pathologist’s opinion and an unsigned letter, supported a verdict that a properly instructed trier of fact could reasonably render.
The court further held that the trial judge did not err in declining to grant a mistrial and that two letters tendered on appeal did not satisfy the Palmer criteria for admissibility as fresh evidence.
The appeal was dismissed.
