The accused was convicted of two counts of second degree murder based in part on out-of-court statements made by his spouse to the police.
The spouse was not a competent or compellable witness for the Crown.
The trial judge admitted the statements under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, relying on R. v. Hawkins.
The Court of Appeal ruled the statements inadmissible and ordered a new trial.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that admitting the spouse's out-of-court statements under the principled exception to hearsay would undermine the spousal incompetency rule and its underlying rationales.
