A. Berg

The accused was found guilty of manslaughter by a jury after fatally stabbing an unarmed, inebriated victim.

The jury rejected the accused's claim of self-defence.

The sentencing judge found that the accused had a safe avenue of escape and used excessive force, but noted mitigating factors including the accused's youth, lack of prior record, remorse, and an element of provocation by the victim.

The accused was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-trial custody.

During a murder trial, the defence applied for a mistrial based on alleged misrepresentations and misstatements made by the Crown in its closing address to the jury.

The defence argued that the Crown's comments regarding DNA evidence, witness immunity, and the accused's testimony fatally wounded the trial process.

The court reviewed the eight alleged errors and concluded that while some statements were inaccurate or lacked an evidentiary basis, they did not individually or cumulatively constitute a fatal wounding of the trial process.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the errors could be adequately addressed through limiting instructions to the jury.

During a jury trial for second degree murder, the accused sought an order permitting the jury to view the alleged stabbing scene to assess the eyewitness evidence.

Applying the interests of justice standard under s. 652 of the Criminal Code and the framework articulated in prior authority, the court held the accused had not shown a very real and demonstrable advantage from a view.

The court found that photographs, surveillance video, maps, and available distance evidence adequately conveyed the relevant information, while a site visit risked introducing untested extrinsic evidence and posed logistical and security concerns.

The application was denied.

The applicant, charged with second degree murder, brought a pre-trial motion to admit evidence of the deceased's disposition for aggressive and provocative behaviour when intoxicated.

The applicant intended to argue self-defence at trial.

The court considered whether evidence of the deceased 'beaking off' to strangers was logically relevant to the issue of who was the aggressor in the fatal confrontation.

The court ruled the evidence admissible, finding it minimally supportive of the deceased's aggressive nature when drinking and concluding its probative value was not substantially outweighed by potential prejudice.