Law360 Canada ( May 2, 2025, 12:26 PM EDT) -- Appeal by appellant Hallman of his conviction for second-degree murder of Baltzis. Hallman and Baltzis had known each other for some time. On the day of the incident, they consumed alcohol and drugs together. A witness testified that the appellant, covered in blood, admitted to stabbing Baltzis after a fight. The appellant later told police that Baltzis had held a knife to his throat, prompting him to retaliate, resulting in multiple stab wounds and further assault on Baltzis. At trial, Hallman maintained that he acted in self-defence but relied on the alternative of the partial defence of provocation. The trial judge instructed the jury on both defences. During the trial, both the Crown and the defence focused on self-defence, with the defence also arguing provocation. The trial judge provided the jury with decision trees outlining the elements of provocation, emphasizing that the Crown had to disprove provocation beyond a reasonable doubt for a murder conviction. The jury asked several questions about provocation during deliberations, indicating confusion over terms like “sudden” and “sufficient.” The trial judge’s responses were criticized for not directly addressing the jury’s confusion, particularly regarding the suddenness of the provocative act and the appellant’s response. The appellant contended that the trial judge’s instructions to the jury regarding the defence of provocation were either non-responsive, potentially unclear, or incorrect....