Andrea J. Di Fazio

The accused was charged with second-degree murder and attempted murder following a stabbing incident at an apartment.

The accused admitted to causing the death and injuries but raised the defence of advanced intoxication due to polysubstance abuse (alcohol, methamphetamine, and fentanyl).

The court rejected the accused's testimony regarding his memory and consumption at the scene, finding his post-offence conduct demonstrated an ability to foresee the consequences of his actions.

The court found the accused had the requisite intent for second-degree murder under s. 229(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

However, the court found the Crown failed to prove the specific intent to kill required for attempted murder, convicting the accused of the lesser included offence of aggravated assault.

The appellant was convicted of multiple offences, including robbery with a firearm, arising from a home invasion.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's DNA on a pry bar left at the scene and his subsequent arrest in a stolen vehicle containing items taken during the robbery.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended identification evidence, failed to consider alternative explanations for the DNA evidence, and erred in finding a real firearm was used.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's assessment of the circumstantial evidence was reasonable and the alternative explanations were speculative.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his sentence of two years less a day for break and enter and careless storage of firearms, seeking the substitution of a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence was not manifestly unfit and rejected claims of reasonable apprehension of bias.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to reduce the sentence by 41 days to account for pre-sentence custody credit.