N. Riley

The 14-year-old accused pleaded guilty to first degree murder after fatally stabbing a 15-year-old fellow resident at a group foster home.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted that the maximum youth sentence of 10 years should be imposed, with no credit for pre-disposition custody.

The court accepted the joint submission, noting the horrific circumstances of the unprovoked attack, the accused's history of violent behaviour, and his significant psychiatric conditions.

The accused was sentenced to six years in custody followed by four years of conditional supervision in the community.

The applicant, Jahson Sanderson, brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on a charge of robbery under s.343(a) of the Criminal Code.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Crown failed to establish the requisite link between the violence or threat of violence and the purpose of the theft.

The evidence indicated that any violence or threats were not for the purpose of extorting the vehicle or preventing/overcoming resistance to its stealing, but rather for other purposes or as an impulsive act.

Pre-trial evidentiary ruling in a homicide prosecution concerning the admissibility of photographs of the deceased taken prior to death.

The Crown sought to introduce several social photographs to show the victim’s physical stature and to humanize the victim before the jury.

The defence argued the photographs lacked probative value and risked eliciting sympathy from the jury, offering instead to concede the victim’s size and stature through an agreed statement of facts.

Applying the probative value versus prejudicial effect analysis from established authorities, the court concluded that one photograph had limited but legitimate probative value and minimal prejudicial effect.

The court permitted the Crown to introduce a single photograph depicting the victim’s small stature, subject to appropriate jury instructions.

The accused brought a pre‑trial application seeking permission to challenge prospective jurors for cause due to extensive pre‑trial publicity surrounding a homicide prosecution.

The parties agreed on five proposed voir dire questions addressing jurors’ exposure to media coverage and potential pre‑formed opinions, but disagreed on a sixth question referencing the alleged dismemberment of the deceased.

The court considered the distinction between prejudice against the accused and generic prejudice arising from the nature of the offence, as discussed in appellate authorities.

The judge held that the sixth question constituted an impermissible offence‑based question and that the presumption of juror impartiality had not been displaced.

The challenge for cause was permitted but the proposed sixth question was excluded.