The appellant, J.D., appealed his convictions for two counts of sexual assault and the sentence imposed.
The appeal focused on whether the trial judge misapprehended the appellant’s evidence, erred in applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework, or committed palpable and overriding error in rejecting the appellant’s testimony.
The court found that the trial judge materially misapprehended aspects of the appellant’s evidence, particularly regarding who suggested returning to the trailer and the analogy of “narcolepsy” for the appellant’s fatigue.
These misapprehensions were central to the credibility assessment and warranted a new trial.
The sentence appeal was dismissed as moot.
