Law360 Canada ( June 19, 2026, 9:45 AM EDT) -- Appeal by the appellants Wright and Fitzpatrick against their convictions. Two men went to Hall’s home. One of them shot Hall multiple times, killing him. Hall’s mother, CH, witnessed the shooting. Both appellants were charged with first-degree murder. The Crown alleged that the appellant Wright was the shooter, and that the appellant Fitzpatrick accompanied him as an accomplice. A jury found Wright guilty of first-degree murder and Fitzpatrick guilty of manslaughter. Fitzpatrick alleged: that the trial judge erred in admitting his parents’ resemblance evidence; that the trial judge’s W(D) instructions were flawed; that the trial judge erred in not granting a mistrial based on the Crown’s improper closing address; and that the verdict against him was unreasonable. Wright alleged: that the trial judge’s W(D) instructions were flawed. In particular, he said that the instructions improperly removed the lesser included offence of manslaughter from the jury’s consideration and that the trial judge erred in not granting a mistrial after Crown counsel’s improper closing address. He argued that no instruction could cure the prejudice caused by Crown counsel’s improper reference to Miaponoose and the frailties of eyewitness identification evidence. Wright argued that both errors improperly de-valued CH’s important exculpatory identification....