ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
— AND —
Stephanie Steinhoff (also known as Stephanie Kirby)
Before Justice J. De Filippis
Heard on August 30-31, September 4-6, & October 19, 2018 & February 10, 2019.
Reasons for Judgment released on March 27, 2019
Mr. Leach counsel for the Crown
Mr. Bothwell for the defendant
INTRODUCTION
1The defendant was charged that “on or about the 18th day of March, 2016 at the City of Niagara Falls she did break and enter a dwelling house situated at Unit 38 – 7104 Lundy’s Lane, Niagara Falls and commit therein the indictable offence of aggravated assault contrary to subsection 348(1)(b) of the Criminal Code”. There is no question that this offence occurred; that is, on the date and at the place in question, two men burst into the victim’s room and one of them repeatedly stabbed him. The injuries meet the test for aggravated assault. The issue before me is whether the defendant, who was present outside the room, is a party to this offence.
2I have concluded that the Crown has not proven that the defendant aided or abetted the crime. These are my reasons.
NON-CONTROVERSIAL FACTS
3This incident happened at the Falls Manor, a motel that also has cabins on the property. Ed Langendoen occupied one of these cabins. Just after midnight, two men crashed through the closed door of his cabin (Unit 38). The victim had not previously met these men, but he did know the defendant. One of the men was James Carson Sr. (now deceased). DNA and other evidence establish that Mr. Carson repeatedly stabbed Mr. Langendoen. The victim fought back and eventually fell to the ground, bleeding badly.
4The defendant arrived at the Falls Manor with the two men. While the victim was being attacked by them she was outside Unit 38 with a dog she had obtained from the cabin occupied by Patryck Paul. She followed the assailants to the pickup truck, with the dog, after they fled the victim’s cabin. Police responded to a 911 call and quickly located the pickup truck. After a brief pursuit the vehicle was found at the residence of James Carson Sr. He was arrested at this time. There was nobody else in the pickup truck.
5The police and paramedics arrived soon after the assailants left. They found the victim on the floor of his cabin. He had been stabbed twice in the chest and to the back of the neck and abdomen. The most severe wound was to his left arm. He was taken to hospital and was treated there for a period of 14 days.
OTHER PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6At the time of this incident, Mr. Langendoen was unemployed due to a shoulder injury and in receipt of social assistance. He had consumed crystal methamphetamine earlier in the day. At the time of the attack, he had been visited by a neighbour, Ms. Krista Stewart. He testified that two strangers suddenly entered his room after “breaking the door down”. He described both men as white, one in his early 50s and 220 pounds. The second man was taller, thinner, and younger.
7Although both men are unknown to the victim, it is clear that the older man was James Carson Sr. According to the victim, the latter shouted “I’m going to fuck you up” as he lunged at him with a knife. The victim heard Ms. Stewart yell, “stop, why are you doing this” and she was restrained by the younger man. The victim fought back and collapsed after being stabbed six times. He said the assailants immediately fled the room.
8The victim called 911 while also trying to stop his bleeding. He testified that as he did so, the defendant came into the doorway of his room. He knew her because they “used to get high together a lot”. The victim testified that she said, “oh, you’re still alive?” to which he responded, “yea, what the fuck”. However, this was not the victim’s evidence at an earlier proceeding. At that time, he testified that as he lay bleeding, the defendant appeared in the doorway and he said, “what the fuck, Stephanie”. The defendant had said nothing. He could not explain this discrepancy other than to note the emotional harm he has suffered from the assault.
9At the time of this incident, Krista Stewart had been living at the Falls Manor, with her children, for one week. She testified that she had previously met the victim through her former spouse and was visiting him when the “doors were kicked in and two guys came through and attacked Ed”. She said the latter fought back and that she screamed “I have children, don’t hurt me”. As she ran out of the room, Ms. Stewart saw a woman with a dog. There is no dispute that this is the defendant. Ms. Stewart testified that she shouted “help, help” and the defendant said, “sometimes you’re just in the wrong place at the wrong time” and “stay out of it”. Ms. Stewart ran back to the victim’s room and saw him on the bed being stabbed. She fled the room again and ran next door to a unit occupied by Patryck Paul, screaming for help. She added that she heard defendant say, “let’s get out of here” and then saw the two assailants run to a truck, followed by the defendant and the dog. Ms. Stewart ran back to the victim’s room and saw him on the ground, bleeding and holding a phone.
10Ms. Stewart repeatedly testified that she cannot understand why the defendant “just stood there” and did not assist when she fled the room, shouting “help, help” and she interpreted the “stay out of it” comment as a threat. Ms. Stewart said she was in “complete shock” and the defendant appeared “calm”. She added that the defendant remained outside the victim’s room “as if protecting them [the assailants]”. She denied that the defendant was inside Mr. Paul’s unit when she first ran there. When challenged by the Defence about her recollection of events, Ms. Steward pleaded trauma and many sleepless nights at the memory of so much blood near the victim.
11Ms. Stewart agreed that just before saying “let’s get out of here” the defendant looked into the victim’s doorway and appeared “horrified by the amount of blood”. Ms. Stewart quickly added “she was involved, she was keeping watch for them”. She explained that the defendant had to know what was happening to the victim “because of the noise level and screaming”.
12Ms. Stewart was confronted with a prior statement to police in which there is no mention of her having heard the defendant say “let’s get out of here”. The witness was surprised by this omission and explained that “I was in shock at the time”. However, she agreed that at a preliminary hearing she testified that it was one of the male assailants who said this. Ms. Stewart also conceded that when the assailants fled the room, the defendant said to them, “what did you do?”.
13Patryck Paul had a cabin adjacent to that of the complainant. He testified that at the time in question he was taking care of a friend’s dog and that the defendant had arrived to pick up the dog for that friend. He saw two men run from the direction of the victim’s unit and went to investigate. He saw the door to the unit had been damaged and that the victim was on the floor bleeding and being attended to by Ms. Stewart. When he went back outside, the defendant and the dog were gone.
14Mr. Paul was a reluctant witness for the Crown. He eventually conceded that when the defendant first arrived to pick up the dog, she said “you don’t need to worry about it” and “something like ‘you don’t need to know anything’” but explained that this did not mean anything and that the defendant had done nothing to obstruct his movements when he went to investigate.
15Another witness to some of the events was Ms. Bateman. She passed away before this trial but had testified at the preliminary hearing. The parties agreed to read part of her evidence at that proceeding at this trial: Ms. Bateman reported that she saw a woman and a dog run towards a motor vehicle and heard a man say, “I stabbed him, get in the fucking truck” and heard the woman respond, “why did you do that?” There is no question that this woman is the defendant.
THE DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY
16The defendant was charged under the name “Stephanie Kirby”. She noted that this was her married name and she should now be referred to by her maiden name, “Stephanie Steinhoff”. She is 49 years old and works as “an escort in the sex trade”. In this regard, she noted that “working the streets” has taught her to mind her own business.
17The defendant testified that on the day in question a friend asked her to pick up her dog. The dog was at Patryk Paul’s residence at the Falls Manor. She was living with Jimmy Carson at this time. James Carson Sr., the father of Jimmy, said he would drive her there in his pickup truck. The three of them went together.
18According to the defendant, when she arrived to pick up the dog, she had no idea where the Carsons were and saw Ms. Stewart at the doorway of the victim’s room. The defendant described what happened next as follows:
Krista [Stewart] was stupefied. She was staring [into the victim’s unit]. Now I know why. I did not touch her. I went to the open door and pushed it open more. I saw a man [the victim] standing by the bed with dishevelled hair and lines on his chest. Now I know they are stab wounds. I panicked and shut the door and said stop and ran for the truck. I didn’t recognize him [the victim]. It all happened in seconds.
19The defendant added that she did not hear anyone say “‘I stabbed him get in the fucking truck’…I did not know what they [the Carsons] were doing in the unit”. When asked by her lawyer if she asked the Carsons “why did you do that?” she responded in a long rambling manner that did not answer the question. The defendant said she had previously met the victim at another motel where they each had their own unit. She said he was “an asshole, not a nice person, but this does not mean I wanted him attacked or knifed – I never thought of him again [after they parted ways]”. The defendant denied saying, when she saw him covered in blood, “are you still alive?”
20The defendant believes that James and Jimmy Carson were high on crystal methamphetamine at the time. She gave a vague explanation about why she would accept a ride from James under these circumstances. When asked why she did nothing when Ms. Stewart screamed for help, she responded that “I just wanted to pick up that dog and get out of there”. When pressed on this point, she said “I was scared and just ran”. She clarified that, as they ran to the truck, she asked the Carsons “what did you do”, not “why did you stab him”. She testified that once in the truck it “squealed away from motel, James was flying down the road, he was going nuts” and she saw the flashing lights and siren of a police cruiser in the area.
21The defendant testified that later that evening, Jimmy Carson told her that he and his father had confronted the victim and the latter “fought back and was winning and James pulled a knife and stabbed him”. The defendant could not explain why the Carsons would arrive at the motel that night with her and attack one of her former acquaintances. She rejected the suggestion that they went to commit robbery and she waited outside to prevent interference by others.
ANALYSIS
22The Crown carries the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This fundamental principle means that if the defendant has called evidence, there must be an acquittal: (i) where the testimony is believed, (ii) where the testimony is not believed, but leaves the trier of fact in reasonable doubt, (iii) where testimony is not believed and does not leave a reasonable doubt, but the remaining evidence fails to convince, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty: R. v. W.D. (1991), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), 63 C.C.C. (3D) 397 (S.C.C.). In applying this standard, any defence testimony is not to be viewed in isolation but, rather, against the background provided by all the evidence.
23The Crown does not allege that the defendant herself assaulted the victim. She is accused of helping the assailants to do so. Subsection 21(1) of the Criminal Code expands criminal liability beyond those that actually commit the offence. This subsection provides that “Everyone is a party to an offence who (a) actually commits it; (b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or (c) abets any person in committing it”. The principles that inform this basis of liability are well established: See, for example, R. v. Greyeyes, 1997 CanLII 313 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 825; R. v. Briscoe, 2010 SCC 13, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 411; and R. v. Almarales, 2008 ONCA 692, [2008] O.J. No. 3937 (C.A.). I will set out my understanding of these principles.
24Aiding and abetting require both conduct and a particular state of mind. An aider may help another person commit an offence by doing something, or failing to do something that it was his/her duty to do. The conduct requirement means that it is not enough that what the aider does, or fails to do, has the effect of assisting the other person to commit the crime. The aider must also intend to help the other person. Actual assistance is necessary.
25An abettor is one who encourages another person to commit a crime. An abettor must provide actual encouragement by words and/or conduct. It is not enough that what the abettor says and/or does has the effect of or encouraging the other person to commit the offence. The abettor must also intend to do so. Actual encouragement is necessary.
26Mere presence is not sufficient to make a person an aider or abettor. Sometimes, to use the words attributed to the defendant in this case, people are in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, if AA knows BB intends to commit an offence and is present at the scene of the crime to help BB do so, by assistance or encouragement, then AA is an aider or abettor and equally guilty.
27Aiding and abetting relates to a specific offence. An aider must do something, or fail to do something that is legally required, for the purpose of helping another person to commit the offence. An abettor must encourage for this purpose. This state of mind requirement, expressed by the term “purpose”, means the Crown must prove both intent and knowledge. The Crown is not required to show the aider or abettor desires that the crime be successful. Moreover, it does not matter if the person aided or abetted is found guilty of the offence.
28The prosecution theory is that the victim was attacked in aid of a theft or because of something he had said or done to the defendant in the past. In this regard, it is noted that the victim believed the defendant had a grievance against him and that the defendant testified she did not think much of him. Moreover, there is no other evidence to suggest the male assailants knew the victim. In addition, there is no doubt the defendant arrived and left the Falls Manor in the company of the assailants and was present outside Unit 38 when the crime was committed. The Crown argues that these facts show that she must have had prior knowledge of the assault.
29The Crown submits that the defendant aided and abetted the attack by the following actions (and, I quote):
- Doing things and saying things that prevent or hinder both Krista Stewart and Patryck Paul from interfering with the assault or rendering aid to the complainant.
- Standing lookout outside the unit and advising the attackers they should leave.
- Closing the door of the unit with the injured complainant inside.
30The Crown adds that the evidence supports the following findings of fact (again, I quote):
- The Defendant was immediately outside of the door of the Complainant’s cabin with a dog when Krista Stewart fled from the attack.
- The Defendant said to Krista Stewart in an intimidating tone “sometimes you are in the wrong place at the wrong time” and “I suggest that you mind your own business and stay out of it”. This was said with the intention of dissuading Krista Stewart from seeking assistance for the victim.
- Further, the Defendant looked into the cabin and said to the attackers “We’ve got to get out of here” or similar words which caused them to cease the attack. This aided their escape.
- The Defendant stood in the door of Patryk Paul’s cabin and momentarily blocked him from investigating a noise he heard outside which was likely the assault.
- The Defendant told Patrick Paul “you don’t need to know anything…. Don’t worry about it.”
- The Defendant looked in the cabin, asked the victim “You are still alive?” and shut the door.
- It is noteworthy that Dawn Bateman hears a male say “I just stabbed him” apparently to the Defendant using the pronoun “him” as opposed to some other description. The female, which the Prosecution submits is the defendant, replies, “Why did you do that?”
31In addition to the foregoing, the Crown notes that Mr. Paul testified that he had not been aware the defendant would arrive to pick up the dog. It is argued that, having regard to all the evidence, the defendant’s testimony that she went to the Falls Manor solely for that purpose and had no knowledge of and participation in the crime cannot be believed and should be rejected.
32The Defence position is that the defendant went to the Falls Manor for a legitimate reason – to pick up her friend’s dog. The fact that Mr. Paul was not expecting her is not probative of anything. Moreover, the first thing the defendant did was to retrieve that dog and she had it with her throughout the events in question. Counsel points out that this was a confined area with numerous small cabins. As such, it is difficult to accept the defendant could be a “lookout” by standing near the complainant’s door. For the same reason, it is not surprising if Mr. Paul pushed her out of the way in entering that unit.
33The Defence submits that Ms. Stewart is not a reliable witness to what the defendant said and did because she was traumatized by the situation. Counsel also emphasizes that, after the attack, another witness, Ms. Bateman, heard a man say “get in the fucking truck, I just stabbed him” and also heard the defendant reply, “why did you do that?”.
34Crown counsel is right to argue for a finding of guilt based upon the passages quoted above from his helpful written submissions. However, I do not agree that the evidence supports those inferences and findings of fact. I accept that Ms. Stewart is an honest witness but the Defence is correct in asserting she is not a reliable one. The inconsistencies between her trial testimony and prior statements are significant. This is undoubtedly due to her visceral reaction to the fact the defendant did not respond to her cry for help. Many Canadians would join her in being appalled by the defendant’s attitude.
35The victim and Mr. Paul do not advance the Crown’s case. The testimony of the former, at its highest – that the defendant remarked, “are you still alive” – confirms Ms. Stewart’s poor assessment of the defendant’s character, but nothing more. In any event, the victim’s testimony at a prior hearing means there is good reason to doubt that the defendant said this. The words attributed to the defendant by Mr. Paul carry more weight because he obviously sympathized with her. Yet, it is clear from his evidence that she did nothing to obstruct him went to investigate what happened to the victim.
36Much of the defendant’s testimony was marked by rambling answers to questions. I am not certain if she was being deliberately evasive or simply unfocussed. However, I am confident that she is untruthful in claiming she did not know the victim lived at the Falls Manor. Moreover, I am confident that the assault on the victim was not a random encounter. The defendant was living with the son of the man who stabbed the victim. The relationship between the latter and the defendant was not good. The assailants and defendant had to know the complainant lived next door to the place from which the dog was to be retrieved. Whether the motive was to settle scores and/or robbery, this was a targeted attack. This does not necessarily mean the defendant knew about it in advance, but she could not fail to know after the assailants burst into the victim’s room; she was standing nearby and had to hear the struggle. In either case, there is nothing to suggest the defendant knew the victim would be stabbed. Indeed, the evidence points otherwise.
37Knowledge of the crime is the foundation upon which party liability is established. But more is required to justify a finding of aiding or abetting. This has not been proven. Presence at the scene is not enough. Actual assistance or encouragement is required. I have a reasonable doubt about this. Notwithstanding the concerns I have expressed about the defendant’s credibility, there is no reason to reject her evidence on this point; that is, that she did not incite or facilitate the attack and fled the area in a panic on seeing the defendant covered in blood. Moreover, even if I did reject her testimony entirely, for the reasons stated above, the prosecution evidence does not convince me that she is guilty.
38Mr. Langendoen was repeatedly stabbed in his room by James Carson Sr. and is fortunate to be alive. The defendant was outside the cabin at the time. There may have been little she could do to help the victim as the events quickly developed but it is clear she did not try. The defendant is properly convicted if she aided or abetted the crime. This has not been established on the criminal law standard of proof.
39The charge is dismissed.
Released: March 27, 2019
Signed: Justice J. De Filippis