R. Pinnock

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder for the deaths of two men who were beaten to death.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including DNA, cellphone records, voice recognition, and eyewitness resemblance, to place the appellant at the scene.

The Court of Appeal found that the evidence, viewed individually and collectively, was too frail to support the inference that the appellant was present at the scene.

The court concluded that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and entered acquittals.

The appellant appealed his convictions for second-degree murder and his 17-year period of parole ineligibility.

He argued the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury on party liability, which could have provided an alternative route to a manslaughter verdict.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the trial judge erred in law by not leaving party liability with the jury, as there was an air of reality to the appellant's secondary involvement.

However, the Court applied the curative proviso, finding the error was harmless and did not cause a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

The jury had the option to convict of manslaughter if they doubted the appellant's intent, but chose to convict of murder.

The appeals from conviction and sentence were dismissed.