In any event, the respondent continues, trial counsel put
before the jury, in one way or another, what would be considered
favourable to the appellant in the record of Heang’s interview.
What counsel sought to ensure the jury understood from Heang’s
( i) the amount of beer the appellant drank before the stabbing;
( ii) the appellant arrived at the party with his girlfriend who
remained with him throughout; and
( iii) the reason underlying the confrontation.
Defence counsel elicited from Heang’s sister evidence that the
appellant brought a date to the party where he drank at least eight
beers. And counsel pointed out to the jury the absence of evidence
about any plot or plan to kill anyone and emphasized the spontaneous nature of the fight.
The governing principles
 The principles that control our decision on this ground of
appeal are not controversial. They involve, as is so often the case
with the adjective law of evidence, a rule and an exception.
 A statement made by an accused to police, which is not
made in furtherance of any common unlawful design, is evidence
for and against only its maker and it cannot be considered in
determining the co-accused’s culpability: R. v. Suzack, 
O.J. No. 100, 141 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (C.A.), at para. 117, leave to
appeal to S.C.C. refused  S.C.C.A. No. 583, 80 C.R.R. (2d)
376; R. v. Parberry,  O.J. No. 4730, 202 C.C.C. (3d) 337
(C.A.), at paras. 15, 21. Thus, where the Crown tenders such
a statement of one accused in a joint trial of several, the
statement is not evidence for or against any accused other
than its maker. The jury should be instructed accordingly:
Suzack, at para. 117.
 In some circumstances, an accused in a joint trial other
than the maker of a statement tendered in evidence at trial by
the Crown may be able to rely on the statement. In order to do
this, the accused who seeks to rely on the co-accused’s out-of-court statement must establish its admissibility for this purpose under the principled exception to the hearsay rule: Waite,
at para. 4. A failure to advance the statement on this basis, or
an unsuccessful attempt to do so, results in the application of the
 The necessity requirement of the principled exception to
the hearsay rule may be established where the party seeking
admission of the hearsay statement cannot compel testimony