R v Meeko

canada, canadian, case law, court opinion, canlii, nuca, 2025nuca12, 2025 nuca 12 (canlii), 2025, nuca, 12, (canlii), 13-23-014-cap, 2025, criminal and statutory offences, appeals, new trial, multi‑count indictment, whether conviction must be set aside for legal error, errors of law in admission of evidence and jury instructions under criminal code, s. 686(1)(a)(ii), functional review of charge did not properly equip jury, fair trial compromised, conviction appeal allowed, new trial ordered, evidence, similar fact and bad character, uncharged discreditable conduct, was the evidence properly admitted and limited?, risk of reasoning and moral prejudice addressed in r v handy, r v b(cr), r v tjf, absence of propensity warning and confusing cross‑count guidance, use only to assess asserted non‑sexual context, new trial ordered, evidence, hearsay, party admissions, incomplete statement, admissibility of “five people who i did” and meaning of “did”, assessment under r v ferris, r v schneider, r v merritt, need to weigh probative value against prejudice and instruct on use and ambiguity, failure to conduct voir dire or give limiting direction, new trial ordered, procedure, jury instructions, multi‑count indictments, did the charge adequately address cross‑count reasoning, inconsistencies and defences?, functional reading per r v abdullahi and r v goforth, mini‑trial framing confusing, incomplete guidance on inconsistencies between witnesses, inadequate linkage of defences to counts, charge insufficient, new trial ordered