proposed opinion evidence, Doherty J.A. added the following
Note 6: Dr. Totten’s voir dire evidence affords an example of the need to con-
sider different parts of the proposed opinion evidence individually. Whatever
may be said about the admissibility of Dr. Totten’s opinion concerning the
meaning of a teardrop tattoo, his evidence as to the timing of the inscription
of the tattoo (para. 51) does not seem founded either in his research or his
clinical experience, but rather seems a product of what Dr. Totten thought
was common sense. It may be that this aspect of Dr. Totten’s evidence would
not be admissible even if his main opinion was admitted.
 At trial, Totten testified that typically a gang member who
had killed a rival gang member would obtain a teardrop tattoo
within six months of the killing. Abbey obtained his teardrop
about four months after Peter was murdered. The defence not
only did not object to this aspect of Totten’s evidence, in the precharge conference the defence agreed with the Crown that Totten
could testify about the timing of obtaining a teardrop tattoo.
 In his charge, the trial judge did not refer to Totten’s evidence on timing. Again, the defence did not object or ask for a
specific instruction. Now on appeal, however, Abbey submits,
consistent with Doherty J.A.’s footnote, that the trial judge
should have instructed the jury to ignore Totten’s evidence about
the timing of obtaining a teardrop tattoo. I do not accept Abbey’s
submission for four reasons.
 First, Doherty J.A.’s comment in the footnote was not
mandatory. He left to the trial judge the decision whether to
exclude the evidence on timing or at least instruct the jury not to
 Second, on my reading of Totten’s testimony (and not
taking into account the reliability concerns brought to light by
the fresh evidence), his evidence about timing did seem to have a
basis in his clinical experience.
 Third, Totten’s evidence on timing was equivocal, as at
least one part of it helped the defence. Totten testified that he
would not expect a gang member to get a teardrop tattoo where
the gang member finds out shortly after the murder that the
person he killed was not a rival gang member. The defence
argued to the jury that Abbey would have known within four
months after the murder that Peter was not a member of the
Galloway Boys. Thus, relying on this aspect of Totten’s evidence
the defence submitted that Abbey did not obtain a teardrop
tattoo to signify he had killed a rival gang member.
 Fourth, even if the trial judge erred in not giving the
instruction now asked for — and I do not concede that he did err
— the error was minor and harmless. It was highly unlikely to
have affected the verdict.