Law360 Canada ( July 17, 2025, 2:31 PM EDT) -- Appeal by Saunders from conviction for second-degree murder. Saunders maintained that he should have been convicted of manslaughter. At trial, Saunders’ main defence was that he lacked the required intent due to alcohol and drug consumption. He admitted to choking the deceased, who was a sex trade worker, but testified he did not intend to kill her. He made inconsistent statements to medical personnel about the circumstances leading to the killing. On appeal, Saunders asserted that the trial judge provided an inadequate W(D) instruction. He also argued that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury on the defences of provocation and accident. Finally, he maintained that the trial judge erred in refusing to admit expert evidence regarding recovered memories. The Crown submitted that the jury charge contained a detailed description of the doctor’s testimony along with a specific instruction regarding his expert evidence. Thus, it asserted that the W(D) instruction was sufficient. Regarding the inconsistent statements, the Crown noted that the trial Crown (not the same as on appeal) suggested that a W(D) instruction be given as part of the standard instruction regarding inconsistent statements of an accused. However, trial counsel (not the same as on appeal) opposed any such instruction....