The appellant was convicted of first degree murder based entirely on circumstantial evidence.
At trial, the judge excluded testimony regarding a telephone conversation that would have explained the appellant's highly incriminating prior knowledge of the circumstances of the victim's death.
The Court of Appeal found the exclusion was an error but applied the curative proviso in s. 613(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code to uphold the conviction.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the excluded evidence could reasonably have affected the jury's verdict, meaning the Crown failed to prove the verdict would necessarily have been the same.
A new trial was ordered, at which new procedural rules making the appellant's spouse a compellable witness would apply.
