How has the jury been instructed in a sexual assault trial to consider corroboration evidence?

Then, as was his duty, the learned trial Judge pointed out to the jury the evidence which in his opinion was capable of being corroborative. As the sole issue was consent, he pointed out that the emotional and hysterical condition of the complainant when interviewed by the police officers and the doctor shortly after the acts of intercourse occurred and her physical bruises and injuries as disclosed in the medical examination were evidence capable of constituting corroboration. In the circumstances of this case, such instruction, in my view, was a proper one and in accord with the judgment of this Court in Regina v. Aubichon (1964), 1964 CanLII 362 (SK CA), 48 W.W.R. 529, 44 C.R. 65.