The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder following a trial where two contradictory versions of the homicide were presented.
The trial judge instructed the jury that they must choose the more persuasive version and that the accused had to prove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge erred in law on the burden of proof.
The accused is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt regarding both the competing versions of facts and the defence of self-defence.
