The unrepresented appellant appealed his convictions, arguing that the Crown's cross-examination was improper and that the trial judge failed to provide limiting instructions regarding his conspiracy theory.
The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the Crown improperly cross-examined the appellant on extraneous matters and his failure to deny allegations in-chief.
The trial judge also failed to instruct the jury on the limited use of the appellant's conspiracy theory.
The appeal was allowed, but a stay of proceedings was entered as the appellant had already served his sentence and this would be his fourth trial.
