interviews, or in-court testimony to afford a window into the
appellant’s mental state.
 Fourth, the instructions given. Taken as a whole, the
instructions to the jury repeatedly emphasized their obligation to
consider all the evidence in resolving the factual issues that were
theirs to decide. In connection with their decision about the
mental element in murder, the jury was directed to consider what
the appellant said and did before, at the time and after the killing; the circumstances in which the killing occurred; the manner
in which the appellant acted; and to consider all the evidence in
reaching their conclusion. They were told to take into account the
appellant’s consumption of alcohol and its disinhibiting effect on
conduct and restraint.
 Finally, I do not suggest that the charge was perfect. It
was not. Nor need it have been. On the evidence in this case,
however, it was adequate to the task demanded of it.
Ground #3: Jury Use of the Statement of Kimsan Heang
 This ground of appeal has to do with the admissibility
of a piece of evidence, an out-of-court police interview of
a co-accused, for a purpose other than that for which it was tendered and received at trial.
 To begin, some background.
The statement of Kimsan Heang
 About a month after the stabbings of the deceased and
Mao Kim and the arrests of the appellant and co-accused, police
interviewed Kimsan Heang. The interview was audio and video
recorded, transcribed and admitted at trial, along with the transcript, as part of the case for the Crown.
The positions of the parties at trial
 The Crown tendered the statement and sought to use it
as evidence only in connection with its maker, Kimsan Heang.
 Trial counsel for the appellant sought to use the “
exculpatory” parts of this statement in support of the defence he
 Counsel for the other co-accused did not seek to have
Heang’s interview admitted for consideration in the case against
them. They opposed its admission and use as part of the case of