Law360 Canada ( April 22, 2026, 9:38 AM EDT) -- Appeal by George from her conviction for second-degree murder arising from the stabbing death of her uncle, Beaver. The Crown’s case at trial was that George organized a home invasion intending that Beaver be killed, with her boyfriend, Cavanagh, as the stabber. The defence position for Cavanagh was that any one of the intruders, including possibly George, could have inflicted the fatal wounds. The Crown relied on three police statements in which George admitted helping organize the break‑in but denied planning Beaver’s death, denied knowing Cavanagh had a knife, and said she expected only a fistfight. On appeal, George alleged several jury instruction errors, that the judge failed to properly instruct on the limited probative value of her after‑the‑fact conduct (fleeing and initial false statements), failed to instruct the jury that her exculpatory statements could raise a reasonable doubt even if not fully believed, and erred by leaving her potential liability as the stabber to the jury. She also raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim tied to her counsel’s lack of submissions on these issues. The Crown argued that the conviction should stand or, alternatively, that any errors were cured because the evidence of murder was overwhelming. The central issues were whether the after‑the‑fact conduct instruction was erroneous, whether the R v W.(D.) direction adequately conveyed how her police statements could generate reasonable doubt, whether the judge erred in leaving the primary offender issue with the jury, and whether the curative proviso applied....