Case information

Criminal law — Charge to jury — Evidence — Identification — Eyewitness evidence — Whether the Court of Appeal erred by finding a caution about exculpatory eyewitness evidence was justified — Whether the Court of Appeal erred by concluding any prejudice was ameliorated by the functional equivalent of a W.(D.) instruction.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Following a trial before judge and jury in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the appellant was convicted of attempted murder, aggravated assault and using a firearm to commit an indictable offence. A man wearing a police-style vest knocked on the door of the home of the victims, a father and his adult son. The father opened the door and the man drew a handgun and opened fire. The bullets struck both the father and son. The main issue at trial was the identity of the shooter. The father testified, but was not asked to identify the shooter in the courtroom. Parts of his description of the shooter did not match the appellant. In finding the appellant guilty, the jury must have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was the person at the front door. The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing there were errors in the trial judge’s instructions to the jury on eyewitness identification evidence. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal.