The appellant, S.C., appealed his sexual assault conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the use of the complainant's prior consistent statement (a Facebook message).
The Crown had invited the jury to use this statement as corroboration and the appellant's lack of response as evidence of guilt.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by not providing a limiting instruction, which was crucial given the Crown's impermissible use of the evidence and the central role of the complainant's credibility.
The court reiterated that prior consistent statements are presumptively inadmissible for truth or corroboration and require limiting instructions even if admissible under an exception or as after-the-fact conduct.
The appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered.
