COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-40000072
DATE: 20240209
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and -
SOREEYSA ABDI
Barry Stagg and Glen Tucker, for the Crown
Benjamin Vincents, for Mr. Abdi
HEARD: February 5, 2024
BYRNE J.
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
[1] On June 6, 2023, Soreeysa Abdi was convicted of the second-degree murder of Leah St. Jean. Mr. Abdi is to be sentenced today.
[2] A conviction for second degree murder carries with it a mandatory life sentence. The issue before me is one of parole ineligibility. As a general rule, the period of parole ineligibility for second-degree murder is 10 years (R. v. Shropshire, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 277, at para. 27). The trial judge may, after taking into account the factors set out in s. 745.4 of the Criminal Code, increase the number of years of parole ineligibility up to 25 years. The factors for consideration are as follows:
• The character of the offender;
• The nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence; and
• The jury’s recommendation.
[3] I am mindful as I navigate my way through this process, that regardless of the number of years of parole ineligibly that I impose, Mr. Abdi is still subject to a sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of Leah St. Jean. Ultimately, it will be up to the parole authorities to decide whether Mr. Abdi’s past and future behavior in custody warrants release.
[4] Crown counsel takes the position that 17 years of parole ineligibility is warranted and justified. The defence takes the position that parole ineligibility of 10-12 years is in line with the current jurisprudence for similar offences. Both parties have submitted cases in support of their respective positions, which I have thoroughly reviewed. Although I am grateful for the guidance, the truth is no two cases are identical. Sentencing is a highly individual, fact-driven process, and at some point, the compare and contrast approach becomes counterproductive.
Jury Recommendations
[5] Turning first to the issue of the jury recommendations with respect to parole ineligibility. In this case, three members of the jury made no recommendation, seven members of the jury recommended seven years of parole ineligibility and two members of the jury recommended twenty years of parole ineligibility for the offender, Soreeysa Abdi.
[6] In determining how much weight to attach to these recommendations, I am mindful that aside from being told that the offender will be sentenced to life in prison and that parole ineligibility can be set anywhere between 10 and 25 years, jurors are given virtually no other information on how to formulate an appropriate sentence. They are not provided with any caselaw or victim impact statements. They were not given any background information about the offender, nor did they have the benefit of counsels’ submissions on sentence. In this case, the recommendation was made after days of sequestered deliberation and being told that the job of sentencing is strictly that of the trial judge. They make the recommendation in a vacuum. The bottom line is that under the circumstances attached to this case, I am not prepared to place much weight on the recommendations from the jury.
The Offence
[7] Turning now to the facts in this case. Although I do not have the benefit of knowing what findings of fact were made by the jury, many things in this case are not in dispute.
[8] There is no dispute that on January 21, 2021, Leah St. Jean was shot and killed in her apartment where she lived with her friends, Julianna Fodor and Soreeysa Abdi. Ms. St. Jean had moved in with Ms. Fodor and Mr. Abdi in the summer of 2020, but she had known and been friends with Mr. Abdi for some time before that. She slept on a mattress in the living room area.
[9] There is no dispute that sometime during the morning hours of January 21, 2021, Mr. Abdi shot Ms. St. Jean twice in the posterior-side of her body and head. The post-mortem examination revealed that one bullet went through her brain and the other bullet went through her heart. The injuries were described by the pathologist as catastrophic and highly fatal. In other words, Ms. St. Jean would have died within seconds of being shot. The pathologist also concluded that the shots would have been fired at a moderately close range, which is entirely consistent with the evidence of Soreeysa Abdi.
[10] There is no dispute that the prohibited firearm that killed Ms. St. Jean belonged to Mr. Abdi. It was a 9mm semi automatic handgun. Mr. Abdi purchased the gun in 2019 and kept it in his home fully loaded.
[11] After the shooting and killing of Ms. St. Jean, video surveillance captures Mr. Abdi leaving the building through the stairwell. Mr. Abdi did not call for medical assistance or offer Ms. St. Jean any help or assistance after he shot her and left her to die.
[12] I further find that Ms. St. Jean was unarmed at the time she was shot by Mr. Abdi. By virtue of the verdict, it is clear that the jury rejected Mr. Abdi’s evidence of self defense. Based on the evidence at trial, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the only firearm in the apartment was that of Mr. Abdi and that he was in sole possession of it at all times. I am satisfied that Ms. St. Jean did not at any time possess a firearm and was completely unarmed at the time she was shot in the back of her head and body by Mr. Abdi.
[13] Further, given that Ms. St. Jean was shot at a moderate close range, when her back was turned to Mr. Abdi and she posed no threat, and that those shots struck her brain and heart, I am satisfied that his was an execution style shooting and amounts to an aggravating circumstance worthy of significant consideration.
[14] Crown counsel invites me to find that Mr. Abdi and Ms. St. Jean’s relationship as both friends and roommates amounts to a statutorily aggravating circumstance pursuant to section 718.2(ii) of the Criminal Code. The section is traditionally reserved for offences committed against intimate partners or family members of the offender. The relationship between Ms. St. Jean and Mr. Abdi does not technically fit into these categories and I am not suggesting that the statutory parameters be expanded. The fact that Ms. St. Jean was shot and killed in her home is on its own an aggravating circumstance. Further, Ms. St. Jean and Mr. Abdi were not just roommates, they were friends with a shared history. I am satisfied that there was a power imbalance within the household, which in my view left Ms. St. Jean in very vulnerable position. All of which amounts to a highly aggravating circumstance deserving of consideration.
The Offender
[15] Soreeysa Abdi is currently 29 years of age. He was 26 years old at the time of his offence. Prior to this offence, he had a modest criminal record of four offences including two offences of failing to comply, one conviction for obstruct a peace officer and one conviction of possession for the purpose of trafficking.
[16] Most of the background information about Mr. Abdi stems from the pre-sentence report. The report indicates that Mr. Abdi was raised by a young immigrant single mother who worked hard and struggled to support her three children. He was raised in a low socio-economic environment that was characterized by crime and violence. His mother indicates that he was showing signs of mental illness and learning disabilities at a young age but that they were never explored, assessed or treated. Despite these challenges, Mr. Abdi did attend school and was able to complete grade 11. As he aged, he became more and more entrenched into a criminal lifestyle and drugs and alcohol became part of his daily life.
[17] Dr. Gojer was the forensic psychiatrist who testified at trial on behalf of Mr. Abdi. It was his opinion that Mr. Abdi was suffering from a mental disorder. He said Mr. Abdi had a psychotic illness. He was not able to make a diagnosis of schizophrenia, but he did say that he believes Mr. Abdi was suffering from a schizophrenic-spectrum disorder, but that Mr. Abdi’s drug use added an element of uncertainty to these findings. Further, he was unable to conclude with any specificity the onset of the psychotic illness. He acknowledged that they did not do any independent psychological or other testing of Mr. Abdi. His conclusions were based entirely on information received from Mr. Abdi, Ms. Fodor and Mr. Abdi’s mother. Of significance is that despite finding that Mr. Abdi was suffering from psychosis at and around the time of the offence, Dr. Gojer did not find any relationship between the shooting death of Ms. St. Jean and Mr. Abdi’s psychosis.
[18] I do accept that Mr. Abdi’s life has been fraught with challenges and difficult circumstances that influenced the decisions he made leading up to the shooting death of Ms. St. Jean. They do not however amount to an excuse him for the murder of Ms. St. Jean. They simply provide some limited insight on why and how he landed here before me.
[19] Mr. Abdi has been incarcerated since his arrest on January 22, 2021. He reports that since that time he has been sober, taking medication to assist with his mental health issues and engaging in daily prayer as part of the Muslim faith that he has adopted. Notwithstanding these apparent advancements, the probation officer who completed the pre-sentence report concluded that Mr. Abdi still maintains a very pro-criminal attitude that places him at risk to re-offend and as such was unable to make any recommendations to reduce said risk.
Victim Impact
[20] Every murder, without question, is a tragedy of epic proportion. The murder of Leah St. Jean is no exception. Her family have expressed the heaviness that has descended upon them since finding out about her death. Navigating the death of a loved one when it comes suddenly, sharply and without warning, like that of Leah, becomes a daily struggle. The wounds are deep. The grief profound. You search for answers that never come. It is my hope for all of those that loved and cared for Leah, that as this criminal proceeding concludes, you will begin to heal and in time, the devastation and pain you feel will be replaced with only the beautiful and loving memories of Leah.
Conclusion
[21] I am ever mindful of the obstacles and challenges in Mr. Abdi’s life that have landed him here before me. In my view, however, given the violent and aggravating circumstances of this murder, the principles of deterrence and denunciation must dominate. The use of a firearm combined with other previously identified aggravating circumstances of this murder justify the imposition of an elevated period of parole ineligibility.
[22] After a thorough review of the caselaw, submissions of counsel and the unique facts that are attached to this case, I am satisfied that the mandatory life sentence with an increase in parole ineligibility to 16 years is warranted.
[23] As a further consequence, ancillary orders are mandated by the Criminal Code for this conviction. Pursuant to section 109(10)(a), you are prohibited from possessing any firearm or ammunition as defined by the Criminal Code for life. Further you are required to submit a sample of your DNA to the DNA data bank pursuant to section 487.051 of the Criminal Code.
[24] Pursuant to section 743.21 of the Criminal Code you are prohibited from communicating directly or indirectly with any members or Ms. St. Jean’s immediate or extended family for the duration of your custodial sentence.
Byrne J.
Released: February 9, 2024
COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-40000072
DATE: 20240209
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and -
SOREEYSA ABDI
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Byrne J.
Released: February 9, 2024