hand. Seconds later, the appellant caught up to the deceased.
Further contact appears to have taken place before the appellant
is restrained by his friends and led back towards the restaurant,
his shirt covered in blood. One of his friends takes the knife
from the appellant, wipes it off, folds it up and puts it in his
The cause of death
 The deceased suffered three head wounds. One was the
result of blunt force trauma, and two were incised wounds, cuts
caused by a sharp instrument. He also suffered a large incised
wound to the inside of his right arm. This wound was significant
because it completely severed the brachial artery and vein, causing significant blood loss. The pathologist also noted three stab
wounds to the right side of the deceased’s back, chest and torso.
 The pathologist concluded that the stab wounds had likely
been caused by a knife, which penetrated the chest to the right
lung. Two of the wounds perforated the deceased’s diaphragm
and his liver. The cause of death was blood loss from the sharp
force injuries to the right arm and torso, each of which could have
caused the deceased to die from blood loss.
The grounds of appeal
 The appellant advances four grounds of appeal. Each has
to do with what is said to be an error or omission in the final
instructions to the jury. As I would paraphrase them, the com-
plaints are that the trial judge erred
( i) in instructing the jury on the mental element in murder
under s. 229(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46;
( ii) in failing to give a “rolled up” instruction to the jury;
( iii) in failing to instruct the jury that it could rely on the state-
ment made by the co-accused Kimsan Heang in his police
interview, entered as part of the case for the Crown, in decid-
ing the appellant’s case; and
( iv) in misapprehending the evidence of Rin Ken upon reviewing
it in the charge to the jury.
Ground #1: The Mental Element in Murder
 This ground of appeal alleges error in the trial judge’s final
instructions to the jury about the mental element the Crown was
required to prove to establish the appellant’s guilt of murder
under s. 229(a).