Lana Strain

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder following a brutal, unprovoked attack on a 75-year-old woman walking on a trail.

The offender, who had consumed marijuana and psilocybin, inflicted severe head injuries that ultimately caused the victim's death 14 months later.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 14-17 years, while the defence sought the minimum 10 years.

The court weighed the severe aggravating factors of the savage attack on a vulnerable victim against the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, and prospects for rehabilitation, ultimately setting parole ineligibility at 13 years.

The accused was charged with second degree murder after brutally beating a 75-year-old woman on a walking trail.

The accused admitted to causing the victim's death but argued he lacked the requisite intent due to extreme intoxication from consuming magic mushrooms and marijuana.

The court rejected the defence of non-mental disorder automatism, finding no psychiatric evidence to support it.

The court concluded that the accused's coordinated actions before, during, and after the attack, along with the targeted and severe nature of the blows, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to cause bodily harm that he knew was likely to cause death and was reckless as to whether death ensued.

The accused was found guilty of second degree murder.

The accused is charged with first-degree murder and aggravated sexual assault.

He intends to plead guilty to manslaughter, arguing he lacked the requisite mens rea for murder due to severe alcohol intoxication.

In these pre-trial motions, the court ruled on the admissibility of evidence.

The court admitted the accused's post-arrest exculpatory statements by agreement.

The court allowed some evidence of the accused's uncharged disreputable conduct (an assault and disarming a neighbour) to show his mental state, but excluded highly prejudicial details like theft and name-calling.

Finally, the court ruled that statements made by the accused while pinned down by civilians making a citizen's arrest were admissible, finding the civilians were not 'persons in authority' and the statements were voluntary.

In a murder trial where self-defence was the central issue, the Crown removed four witnesses from its list shortly before trial because they possessed reliable exculpatory evidence.

The defence brought a motion to compel the Crown to call these witnesses.

The court held that while the Crown generally has discretion over which witnesses to call, the decision to exclude witnesses solely to withhold exculpatory evidence is a trial tactic reviewable under the court's trial management authority.

Finding that the Crown's strategy would adversely affect trial fairness, the court ordered the Crown to call the witnesses during its case.