The appellants were convicted of second degree murder.
The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of two unsavoury witnesses who had strong motivations to lie.
The trial judge failed to give a clear, sharp Vetrovec warning regarding their testimony, failed to instruct the jury on the limited use of a highly prejudicial letter written by one of the witnesses, and failed to instruct the jury on the use of prior inconsistent statements.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeals and ordered a new trial, finding that the cumulative effect of these errors could not be cured by the proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, as there was a reasonable possibility the verdict would have been different but for the errors.
