R v Lester

The appellant, Lester, appealed against his conviction for the murder of his wife. The prosecution alleged that Lester had promised to pay someone $10,000 to kill his wife. During the trial, the judge admitted evidence of a conversation in which a friend asked Lester if he "did it". Lester argued that his response could not constitute an admission of guilt and that the evidence should have been excluded due to its potential prejudicial effect. The appeal raised issues about the admissibility of evidence and whether the trial judge should have directed the jury against drawing any adverse inference against Lester due to the imprecision of language in his response. Lester also argued that his conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory because another person may have killed his wife for reasons unrelated to any procurement by Lester.

The court examined whether the evidence of the conversation should have been excluded. It found that the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence was not an error. The court also considered whether the trial judge should have directed the jury against drawing any adverse inference against Lester due to the imprecision of language in his response. The court concluded that the trial judge's direction to the jury was sufficient. Finally, the court examined whether the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory. It found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

The court dismissed the appeal. The court found that the evidence was properly admitted and that the trial judge's direction to the jury was sufficient. The court also found that the conviction was supported by the evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction stood.