The appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder and his sentence, arguing primarily that the trial judge's pre-Lifchus jury instruction on reasonable doubt contained reversible error.
The majority held that although the charge improperly suggested reasonable doubt had its ordinary meaning and failed to state that probable guilt was insufficient, the charge as a whole substantially complied with Lifchus because it strongly linked reasonable doubt to the presumption of innocence and clearly framed the self-defence issue.
A dissenting judge would have ordered a new trial on the basis that the combined misdirection and non-direction created a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood the burden of proof.
The sentence appeal was also dismissed.
