K. Crosbie

At a preliminary inquiry, the accused was charged with first-degree murder in the death of a 64-year-old woman.

The Crown sought committal on first-degree murder on two bases: (1) planning and deliberation, and (2) constructive first-degree murder under section 231(5)(e) of the Criminal Code (murder during forcible confinement).

The accused conceded committal on second-degree murder.

The court found sufficient evidence of planning and deliberation based on motive and concealment of identity, but rejected the constructive first-degree murder theory as the evidence did not establish that confinement was distinct from the act of killing.

Five individuals were jointly charged with aggravated assault arising from an attack on the victim in an apartment building hallway.

The victim was struck with a beer bottle and stabbed multiple times.

The Crown's case depended entirely on eyewitness identification by the victim.

During trial, the Crown withdrew charges against one accused.

The court found that the victim credibly identified two of the remaining accused as the direct perpetrators of the assault.

However, the court found insufficient evidence to establish that the other two accused were parties to the assault, as the Crown's theory relied on speculation regarding their knowledge and intent.

The court also harboured reasonable doubt regarding one of the weapon possession charges.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 3.5 years' imprisonment for sexual assault and incest, arguing the sentencing judge erred by only granting 1:1 credit for pretrial custody spent in administrative segregation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge properly exercised his discretion by weighing the harsh conditions against other factors, including the appellant's outstanding charges, breach of bail, and significant criminal record.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and incest, arguing the trial judge erred in permitting the Crown to call reply evidence regarding the timing of a pizza order.

The appellant claimed this was a collateral issue.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence was helpful in resolving an essential issue in the case, as it supported the complainant's timeline and undermined the appellant's evidence regarding his whereabouts prior to the assault.