demonstrating that he quickly decided, based on his impression
of the appellant, that the appellant had murdered his wife.
 In cross-examination, Detective Miller testified that, in
his opinion, the appellant did not react to being questioned
about Mrs. Short’s death in the way that someone who was
innocent would have reacted. Detective Miller testified:
I believe he was faking. He didn’t cry once and he’d, he’d have an outburst
and then immediately start talking calm again which is very inconsistent
with anything I’ve seen in my career.
 The defence was entitled, if so advised, to bring out the
evidence that it did from Detective Miller to support its “tunnel
vision” theory. The trial judge, however, had to make it clear to
the jury that Detective Miller’s opinion about the appellant’s
veracity was irrelevant to their deliberations. The trial judge
also had to make it clear to the jury that Detective Miller’s opinions about the appellant’s demeanour and the inferences that
could be drawn from that demeanour could not be used by the
jury as evidence of the appellant’s guilt: see R. v. Van, 
1 S.C.R. 716,  S.C.J. No. 22, 2009 SCC 22, at para. 73.
 I think it was crucial that the limiting instructions
described above be given. If the jury thought they could act on
Detective Miller’s opinions, the case for the defence was in serious peril. Nor do I agree with the respondent that because the
evidence was elicited by the defence, a limiting instruction was
unnecessary. The risk that the jury would misuse the evidence
remained regardless of which party elicited the evidence.
( v) The admissibility of out-of-court statements
 The Crown adduced evidence of many out-of-court statements, primarily oral and written statements allegedly made by
Mrs. Short to various people, including to her divorce lawyer.
The statements were subject to an admissibility ruling at the
first trial: R. v. Short,  O.J. No. 1851, 2012 ONSC 1514,
100 W.C.B. (2d) 898 (S.C.J.). The appellant did not seek to revisit
that ruling at the second trial: Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985,
c. C-46, s. 653.1.
 In addition to the out-of-court statements that were the
subject of the ruling at the first trial, the Crown at the second
trial, over the objection of the defence, was allowed to lead evidence of two statements made by Linda Short, Mrs. Short’s
sister-in-law, to the police shortly after Mrs. Short’s death. Those
statements described certain events that occurred on the afternoon of October 18. Linda Short died before the trial.