2 S.C.R. 182,  S.C.J. No. 23, 2015 SCC 23, 383 D.L.R. (4th) 429,
470 N.R. 324, J.E. 2015-767, 360 N.S.R. (2d) 1, 67 C.P.C. (7th) 73, 18 C.R. (7th)
308, EYB 2015-251384, 2015EXP-1385, 251 A.C. W.S. (3d) 610
Statutes referred to
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 232(1), (2) [as am.]
APPEAL by the accused from the convictions entered by Nord-
heimer J. of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury, on
October 20, 2010.
Mark C. Halfyard and Breana Vandebeek, for appellant.
John Patton, for respondent.
The judgment of the court was delivered by
 WATT J.A.: — Three gunshots were fired outside Whispers,
an after-hours bar. A man just released from the grip of a bouncer
fired those shots. The bouncer worked at Whispers.
 The shots missed the bouncer, their apparent target. But
the shots hit two other people. One man died. The other was
wounded, but survived.
 A jury was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Peter
Johnson was the shooter. The jury found him guilty of second
degree murder and attempted murder.1
 Peter Johnson appeals his convictions. He says that the trial
judge wrongly excluded some expert evidence tendered by the
defence and further erred in refusing to leave the statutory
partial defence of provocation to the jury in connection with the
charge of second degree murder.
 These reasons explain why I would reject the claim of error
relating to the exclusion of evidence, but allow the appeal on the
basis that provocation ought to have been left with the jury.
The Background Facts
 No one who was part of the melee during which the shoot-
ings occurred identified the shooter as Peter Johnson, or for
that matter, as anybody else. However, it was expressly admitted
at trial that the shooter was the person whom the bouncer,
Albert Grant, had subdued then released in the parking lot out-
1 The jury also found him guilty of two counts of discharging a firearm with
intent to endanger life.