Gary J. Grill

Two accused were jointly tried for the homicide of a young teenager.

The principal accused admitted causing the death but contested whether the killing constituted first degree murder, second degree murder, or manslaughter.

The co‑accused was alleged to have participated in a plan to lure the victim to the residence and assist in the killing.

The trial involved numerous evidentiary rulings, including admissibility of a fictional story written by the co‑accused as potential motive evidence, disclosure and partial admission of the victim’s diary, admission of edited autopsy photographs, and applications concerning prior consistent statements under the Edgar doctrine.

The jury ultimately convicted the principal accused of first degree murder and acquitted the co‑accused.

The decision records extensive reasons on pre‑trial and mid‑trial evidentiary and procedural rulings made throughout the proceeding.

The accused applied for severance from a multi-accused drug trafficking indictment and sought a judge-alone trial rather than a jury trial proceeding jointly with co-accused.

He argued prejudice arising from the loss of his chosen mode of trial, trial delay, financial hardship due to the anticipated length of a joint trial, and potential “guilt by association.” The court reviewed the governing principles under s. 591(3)(b) of the Criminal Code and leading authorities addressing the presumption in favour of joint trials where accused are alleged to have acted in concert.

The court found an evidentiary nexus between the accused and co-accused through the alleged drug trafficking network and concluded that the asserted prejudice could be managed through jury instructions and procedural accommodations.

The applicant failed to establish that a joint trial would work an injustice.