The appellant was convicted of first degree murder at retrial following an earlier appeal that resulted in a new trial.
The Crown's theory was that the appellant arranged for someone, likely Daniel Di Trapani, to murder her husband.
The appellant challenged the trial judge's instructions to the jury, the alternative theory of liability permitting conviction based on an unknown killer, and the treatment of evidence from Teresa Mascia, a Crown witness who was declared adverse and cross-examined.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge adequately related evidence to legal issues, the alternative theory had an air of reality, and the treatment of Mascia's evidence, while containing minor errors, did not render the trial unfair.