Robyn Kendall Scott

The defendant, Daniel Lopez-Carter, was charged with being an accessory after the fact to murder.

The Crown alleged he assisted the perpetrator by disposing of the getaway vehicle (a stolen black Ford F150 pickup truck) the day after the murder.

The defence argued the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the Crown's theory in its opening address was too specific.

The court found the defendant guilty, concluding that he knew of the murder, was involved in disposing of the vehicle (either by driving it or a support vehicle), and did so with the purpose of assisting the perpetrator to escape justice.

The court rejected the defence's "stealth particulars motion" argument, affirming that the Crown's opening address does not bind the prosecution to specific means if the essential elements are proven and no unfairness results.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault on his wife.

The central issue was credibility between the complainant's account of two violent incidents and the accused's denial of any physical violence.

The complainant testified about a December incident involving sausages where the accused pushed her down the stairs and kicked her, and an October incident involving socks where the accused grabbed her by the neck from behind, causing scratches.

The accused testified that he did not use any physical force and characterized his wife as a frequent 911 caller who fabricated complaints.

The court found the complainant to be a credible, forthright witness whose evidence was logical, internally consistent, and reasonably explained her prior failure to report violence.

The court found the accused's testimony not credible, noting his inability to testify in a responsive manner, his attempts to trivialize his wife's complaints, and his controlling behaviour consistent with the complainant's account.

Both counts were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with Failing to Comply with Probation (x2), Break and Entry to a Dwelling, Threatening Death, Assault, Mischief to a Cellphone, and Assault Causing Bodily Harm.

The defence conceded the two probation breaches.

The Crown's case on the remaining charges rested entirely on the complainant's testimony regarding two incidents in November 2014 and February 2015.

The court found the complainant to be a reluctant but generally credible witness.

However, the court found significant inconsistencies in her account of the February 2015 incident, particularly regarding contemporaneous text messages that contradicted her trial testimony.

The court found the Crown had proven the probation breaches beyond a reasonable doubt but failed to prove the remaining counts beyond a reasonable doubt.