You are on page 1of 80

FILE NO. CR 10-01-30631 THE QUEEN v.

CORY SCOTT TYMCHYSHYN AND KRISTOPHER DON BRINCHESKI

CHARGE TO THE JURY

You will soon leave this courtroom and start discussing this case in your jury room. It is time for me to tell you about the law you must follow in making your decision. When we started this case, and at different times during the trial, I told you about several rules of law that apply in general, or to some of the evidence as it was received. Those instructions still apply. Now I am going to give you further instructions. These instructions will cover a number of topics. onsider them as a whole. !o not single out

some as more important and pay less or no attention to others. I am giving them to help you make a decision, not to tell you what decision to make. "irst, I will e#plain your duties as jurors and tell you about the general rules of law that apply to all jury cases. $econd, I will advise you of the specific rules of law that govern this case and the evidence that you have heard. Ne#t I will e#plain what rown counsel must prove beyond a

reasonable doubt to establish the guilt of Co ! T!"#$!%$!& or K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+', and tell you about the defences and other issues that arise from the evidence you have heard. Then, I will discuss the issues that you need to decide and review for

you the evidence that relates to those issues. %y doing this, I hope I can help you recall the evidence and understand how it relates to the issues that you will be asked to decide. You must always keep in mind, however, that to decide this case, you rely on what you remember the evidence was, not what counsel or I say it was. &fter that, I will summari'e the positions that (r. )eith *yrikson and (r. %rent !avidson for the ,ones for the accused rown and (s. +oberta ampbell and (s. )risten

ory $cott Tymchyshyn and (s. -erri Wiebe and (s.

(ichelle %right for the accused )ristopher !on %rincheski have put forward in their closing addresses. The last thing I will e#plain for you is what verdicts you may return and how you should approach your discussion of the case in the jury room. R*%)*#('v* D,('*% o- J,./* 0&. J, ! In every criminal jury trial, there are two judges. In this trial, I am the judge of the law. You are the judges of the facts. &s judge of the law, it is my duty to preside over the trial. I decide what evidence the law permits you to hear and consider and what procedure we will follow in the case. &t the end of the evidence and addresses, I will e#plain to you the rules of law that you must follow and apply to make your decision. &s judges of the facts, your first duty is to decide what the facts are in this case. You make that decision from all of the evidence given during the trial. There will be no more evidence. You consider nothing else. You are entitled to come to common sense conclusions based on the evidence that you

accept. You must not speculate, however, about what evidence there might have been or permit yourselves to guess or make up theories without evidence to support them. !eciding the facts is your job, not mine. .ur law does permit me to comment or e#press opinions about issues of fact. If I do that, however, you do not have to agree with me. You, not I, decide what happened in this case. The evidence does not have to answer every /uestion raised in this case. It would be an unusual case in which a jury could say, 0We now know everything there is to know about this case.1 You only have to decide those matters that are essential for you to say whether the crime has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You accept all the rules of law that I tell you apply in this case. *ven if you disagree with or do not understand the reasons for the law, you are re/uired to follow what I say about it. You are not allowed to pick and choose amongst my instructions on the law. You must not consult other sources or substitute your own views. If I make a mistake about the law, justice can still be done in this case. The court clerk records everything I say. The ourt of &ppeal can correct

my mistakes. %ut justice will not be done if you wrongly apply the law. Your decisions are secret. You do not give reasons. No one keeps a record of your discussions for the ourt of &ppeal to review. &s a result, it is very important

that you accept the law from me and follow it without /uestion. "inally, it is your duty to apply the law that I e#plain to you to the facts that you find to reach your verdict.

I *1*v0&#* o- O,(%'.* I&-o "0('o& You must disregard completely any radio, television or newspaper accounts or internet information you have heard, seen or read about this case, or about any of the other persons or places involved or mentioned in it. Those reports and any other information about the case from outside the courtroom are not evidence. It would not be fair to decide this case on the basis of any information not introduced or tested by the parties in court and made part of the evidence at trial. You, not the media or anyone else, are the only judges of the facts.

I *1*v0&#* o- P *2,.'#* 0&. S!")0($! I remind you, as I said at the beginning of the trial, that you must must consider the evidence and make your decision without sympathy, prejudice or fear. You must not be influenced by public opinion. We e#pect and are entitled to your impartial assessment of the evidence. I *1*v0&#* o- P,&'%$"*&( 2unishment has nothing to do with your task, which is to determine whether rown counsel have proven Co ! T!"#$!%$!& or K '%(o)$*

B '&#$*%+' guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 2unishment has no place in your discussions or in your decision. If you find Co ! T!"#$!%$!& or K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' /,'1(! o- 0& o--*&#*3 '( '% "! 2o43 &o( !o, %3 (o .*#'.* 5$0( ),&'%$"*&( '% 0)) o) '0(*. J, o %6 A)) o0#$ (o T0%+ When you go to your jury room to begin your discussions, you must talk and listen to one another. It is very important that no one starts off by telling everyone else that he or she has already made up his or her mind and will not change it, whatever anyone else may have to say. !iscuss the evidence. 2ut forward your own views. 3isten to what others have to say. Try to reach an agreement, if you can. If you cannot, you are entitled to disagree. 4owever, you must make all reasonable efforts to reach a unanimous decision. !iscuss your differences with an open mind. *ach of you has the right to change your mind5 this is not a sign of weakness.

*ach of you has to decide the case for yourself. You should only do so, however, after you have considered the evidence and the views of your fellow jurors and applied the law that I have e#plained to you. Your only responsibility is to determine whether proven Co ! T!"#$!%$!& or K '%(o)$* rown counsel has

B '&#$*%+' guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt. Your contribution to the administration of criminal justice is a just and proper verdict. We ask for nothing more. We are entitled to nothing less.

F, ($* I&%( ,#('o&% &t the end of these instructions, the lawyers may persuade me that there is something else I should tell you. I may have made a mistake, or left something out. 2erhaps what I have said could be stated more clearly to help you understand it better. 6nless I tell you otherwise, do not consider any further instructions I may give you to be any more or less important than anything else I have said about the law. &ll the legal instructions, whenever they may be given, are part of the same package. T 0&%# ')( o- Ev'.*&#* &lthough the testimony of every witness has been recorded by our court clerk, we will not have a written transcript of the evidence available for you to review when you go to the jury room to discuss your decision in this case. If you need help to recall any parts of the evidence, just ask and I will provide the appropriate assistance.

P o#*., * -o Q,*%('o&% If, during your discussions, you have any /uestions, please put them in writing and give them to the jury usher who will be outside the door of your jury room. The jury usher will bring the /uestions to me. I will discuss them with the lawyers. You will be brought back into the courtroom, and I will reply to your /uestions. I ask that you put your /uestions in writing so that I understand e#actly what it is you want done or answered. In that way, I can be more accurate and helpful in my reply. J,./*6% R*v'*5 0&. Co""*&(% o& Ev'.*&#* I will review what I think are the important parts of the evidence given at this trial and will relate it to the issues you must decide. In doing that, I might mention evidence you think is insignificant or overlook evidence you think is important. I might make a mistake about what a witness said. (y references to the evidence are only to help you remember it, and to show you how it relates to the issues in this case. You should always

remember that it is only your memory and understanding of the evidence that counts in this case 7 not mine or that of counsel. I remind you that you must consider all of the evidence, not just the parts of it that I mention. I may also comment on or e#press an opinion about issues of fact. If I do that, however, you do not have to reach the same conclusion. You, not I, decide what happened in this case.

R*7,' *"*&(% -o 0 8* .'#( & verdict, whether of guilty or not guilty, is the unanimous opinion of the whole jury. To return a verdict in this case re/uires that all of you agree on what your verdict should be. There are times, however, when a jury is unable to reach a verdict. ,urors have the right to disagree. You should make every reasonable effort, however, to reach a verdict. onsult with one another. *#press your own views. 3isten to the views

of others. !iscuss your differences with an open mind. Try your best to decide this case. *veryone should give fair, impartial and e/ual consideration to all the evidence. Your goal should be to reach an agreement that matches the individual judgment of each juror. You must not agree, however, only for the purpose of returning a unanimous verdict. If you reach a unanimous verdict, your foreperson should record it on your verdict sheet and notify the jury usher. We will come back into court to receive it. Your foreperson will tell us your verdict in the courtroom. If you cannot reach a unanimous verdict, you should notify the jury usher in writing. The clerk will bring me your message. I will discuss what has happened with rown and defence counsel. We will then return to the

courtroom to see what we should do ne#t. P *%,")('o& o- I&&o#*&#* Co ! T!"#$!%$!& 0&. K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' are presumed to be innocent, unless and until the rown has proved their guilt beyond a reasonable

doubt. The indictment on which you are trying the accused is only a formal accusation or charge. It tells Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+', as it tells you, what offence the evidence. It is not proof of guilt. The presumption of innocence lasts throughout the trial. This rown alleges against them. The charge is not

presumption only ceases to apply if, at the end of the case and on the whole of the evidence, the rown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Co !

T!"#$!%$!& or K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' are guilty of the crime charged. B, .*& o- P ooNeither Co ! T!"#$!%$!& nor K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' have to present evidence or prove anything in this case5 in particular, that they are innocent of the offence charged. "rom start to finish, it is the rown who must prove the guilt of Co !

T!"#$!%$!& or K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' beyond a reasonable doubt. You must find Co ! T!"#$!%$!& or K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' not guilty of the offence charged unless the guilty of it. rown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they are

R*0%o&041* Do,4( The principle of 0proof beyond a reasonable doubt1 is an essential part of the presumption of innocence. & reasonable doubt is not a far7fetched or frivolous doubt. It is not a doubt based on sympathy or prejudice. It is a doubt based on reason and common sense. It is a doubt that arises at the end of the case based not only on what the evidence tells you, but also on what that evidence does not tell you. It is not enough for you to believe that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& or K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' is probably or likely guilty. In those circumstances, you must find them not guilty because the rown would have would have failed to

prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2roof of probable or likely guilt is not proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You should also remember, however, that it is nearly impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty. The rown is not re/uired to do so.

&bsolute certainty is a standard of proof that does not e#ist in law. If, at the end of the case, and after an assessment of all of the evidence, you are not sure that Co ! S#o(( T!"#$!%$!& and K '%(o)$* Do& B '&#$*%+' committed the offence charged, you must find him not guilty. If, at the end of the case, based on all of the evidence, you are sure that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& or K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' committed the offence, you should find him guilty. A%%*%%"*&( o- Ev'.*&#*

To make your decision, you should consider carefully, and with an open mind, all the evidence presented during the trial. It will be up to you to decide how much or little of the testimony of any witness you will believe or rely on. You may believe some, none, or all of the evidence given by a witness. When you go to the jury room to consider the case, use your collective common sense to decide whether the witnesses know what they are talking about and whether they are telling the trust. There is no magic formula for deciding how much or how little to believe of a witness8s testimony or how much to rely on it in deciding this case. %ut here are a few /uestions you might keep in mind during your discussions. !id the witness seem honest9 Is there any reason why the witness would not be telling the truth9 !id the witness have an interest in the outcome of the case, or any reason to give evidence that is more favourable to one side than to the other9 Was the witness in a position to make accurate and complete observations about the event9 !id he or she have a good opportunity to do so9 What were the circumstances in which the observation was made9 What was the condition of the witness9 Was the event itself unusual or routine9 !id the witness seem to have a good memory9 !oes the witness have any reason to remember the things about which he or she testified9 !id any inability or difficulty that the witness had in remembering events seem genuine, or did it seem made up as an e#cuse to avoid answering /uestions9 !id the witness seem to be reporting to you what he or she saw or heard, or simply putting together an account based on information obtained from

other sources, rather than personal observation9 !id the witness8s testimony seem reasonable and consistent as he or she gave it9 Is it similar to or different from what other witnesses said about the same events9 !id the witness say or do something different on an earlier occasion9 !o any inconsistencies in the witness8s evidence make the main points of the testimony more or less believable and reliable9 Is the

inconsistency about something important, or a minor detail9 !oes it seem like an honest mistake9 Is it a deliberate lie9 Is the inconsistency because the witness said something different, or because he or she failed to mention something9 Is there any e#planation for it9 !oes the e#planation make sense9 What was the witness8s manner when he or she testified9 4ow did he or she appear to you9 !o not jump to conclusions, however, based entirely on how a witness has testified. 3ooks can be deceiving. -iving evidence in a trial is not a common e#perience for many witnesses. 2eople react and appear differently. Witnesses come from different backgrounds. They have different abilities, values and life e#periences. There are simply too many variables to make the manner in which a witness testifies the only or most important factor in your decision. These are only some of the factors that you might keep in mind when you go to your jury room to make your decision. These factors might help you decide how much or little of a witness8s evidence you will believe or rely on. You may consider other factors as well. In making your decision, do not consider only the testimony of the

witnesses. Take into account, as well, any e#hibits that have been filed and decide how much or little you will rely on them to help you decide this case. I have already told you about how you use admissions in making your decision. N,"4* % o- 9'(&*%%*% 4ow much or little of the evidence of the witnesses you will believe or rely on does not depend on the number of witnesses who testify for one side or the other. Your duty is to consider all of the evidence. You may decide that the testimony of fewer witnesses is more reliable than the evidence of a larger number. It is up to you to decide. Your task is to consider carefully the testimony of each witness. !ecide how much or little you believe of what each witness has said. !o not decide the case simply by counting witnesses. Ev'.*&#* D*-'&*. To decide what the facts are in this case, you must consider only the evidence that you hear and see in the courtroom. onsider all of the evidence

in reaching your decision. *vidence is the testimony of witnesses and things produced as e#hibits. It may also consist of admissions. The evidence includes what each witness said in answering the /uestions asked. The /uestions themselves are not evidence unless the

witness agreed that what was asked was correct. .nly the answers of the witness are his:her evidence. The evidence also includes any things that were made e#hibits.

When you go to the jury room to decide this aw, the e#hibits will go with you. You may, but do not have to, e#amine them there. Whether you do so, how and how much, is up to you. in e#actly the same way. The evidence also includes the facts on which the parties have agreed. You must take what they have agreed on as facts in this case. &s I e#plained to you earlier, there are some things that are not evidence. You must not consider or rely upon them to decide this case. The charge that you heard read out when we started this case is not evidence. What the lawyers and I said when we spoke to you during the trial, including what I am saying to you now, is not evidence. .nly the e#hibits and the things witnesses say are evidence. Nothing admissible is being kept from you. D' *#( 0&. C' #,"%(0&('01 Ev'.*&#* $ome of you may have heard the terms 0direct evidence1 and 0circumstantial evidence1. You may believe or rely upon either one as much or as little as the other in deciding this case. 6sually, witnesses tell us what they personally saw or heard. "or e#ample, a witness might say that he or she saw it raining outside. That is called direct evidence. $ometimes, however, witnesses say things from which you are asked to draw certain conclusions. "or e#ample, a witness might say that he or she had seen someone enter the courthouse lobby wearing a raincoat and onsider them along with the rest of the evidence and

carrying an umbrella, both dripping wet. If you believed that witness, you might conclude that it was raining outside, even though the evidence was indirect. Indirect evidence is sometimes called circumstantial evidence. *#hibits, also, may provide direct or circumstantial evidence. In making your decision, both kinds of evidence count. The law

treats both e/ually. .ne is not better or worse than the other. In each case, your job is to decide what conclusions you will reach based upon the evidence as a whole, both direct and circumstantial. common sense and e#perience. To make your decision, use your

U%* o- J, o No(*% ., '&/ D*1'4* 0('o&% When we began this trial, I told you that you could take notes to help you remember what any witness said in testifying here. $ome of you have done so. You may take your notes with you to the jury room for your use during your deliberations. Your notes are not evidence, any more than the notes that I make or the lawyers make are evidence. The only purpose for which you may use your notes during your deliberations is to help you remember what a witness aid or showed, for e#ample, on an e#hibit. It is also important to remember that the notes are those of the note7 taker, not someone else. memories of the evidence. & jury8s decision is a group decision. *veryone has a say, an e/ual say. We depend on the memory and judgment of each one of you to decide this case. !o not simply defer to the person who is or seems to be the best note7 taker. Notes do not make decisions5 jurors do. E:)* ( O)'&'o& Ev'.*&#* $ometimes, knowledge of a technical subject may help jurors decide a case. 2ersons who are /ualified in that subject, by education, training or e#perience, may state their opinions about it. They may also give the reasons for their opinion. You heard the evidence of five e#pert witnesses. I /ualified !r. They may or may not coincide with other jurors8

Thamirajah %alachandra to give e#pert evidence in the area of forensic

pathology, specifically the interpretation and cause of injuries.

!r. )imberly

)enny was /ualified as an e#pert in the e#amination, identification and comparison of polymer materials, including paint. !r. -reg 3it'enberger was /ualified as an e#pert in !N& typing and analysis. "inally, !avid (ak from +ogers and !on alpito from Telus were /ualified to give evidence on cell

phone records and the workings of their respective networks, including cell tower sites. They all gave opinions about some technical matters that you may have to consider in deciding this case. They were /ualified by their training, education and e#perience to give e#pert opinions, and their /ualifications were not disputed. The opinions of e#perts are just like the testimony of any other witnesses. ,ust because an e#pert has given an opinion does not re/uire you to accept it. You may give the opinion as much or as little weight as you think it deserves. You should consider the e#pert8s education, training and e#perience, the reasons given for the opinion, the suitability of the methods used and the rest of the evidence in the case when you decide how much or little to rely on the opinion. It is up to you to decide. *#perts usually form their opinions by applying their training, education and e#perience to a number of facts that the e#pert assumes or relies on as the basis for his or her analysis. What an e#pert assumes or relies on as a fact for the purposes of offering his or her opinion may be the same as what you find as facts from the evidence introduced in this case, or it may be different. To the e#tent that the facts you find are different from the facts

assumed or relied upon by the e#pert in reaching his or her conclusion, you may consider the e#pert8s opinion less helpful to you in deciding this case. 4ow much or now little you believe of or rely upon an e#pert8s opinion is entirely up to you. %ecause of the testimony of Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and K '%(o)$*

B '&#$*%+' much of that e#pert evidence is now not in /uestion. "or e#ample, both accused agree that had !avis was bleeding in that garage on "ebruary ;,

<==> and that he was wrapped in the poly from the garage that later ended up in +obert (archand8s shed. E:$'4'(% $everal e#hibits have been presented during this trial. They are part of the evidence. You may rely upon them, like any other evidence, as much or as little as you think fit when you decide this case. The e#hibits go with you to your jury room. You may, but do not have to, e#amine them there. Whether you do so, how, and how much, is up to you. The e#hibits are only part of the evidence. the rest of the evidence, and in e#actly the same way. onsider them along with

A."'%%'o&% The parties have agreed on some of the facts. When they agree, no witnesses have to be called or e#hibits filed for you to accept those matters as facts. You must take what the parties have agreed on as facts in this case. C$0 (% 0&. S,""0 '*% $everal charts and summaries were filed as e#hibits. They illustrate matters about which evidence has been given. In some cases the authenticity has not been challenged. In other cases such as the te#ts and phone calls deemed important by each side, separate summaries have been filed ?*#hibits ;; and @AB. harts and summaries are only as good as the evidence on which they are based. It is for you to say how much or little you will rely upon them. When making that decision, you should consider not only how they were prepared but also the evidence on which they were based.

O,( o- Co, ( U((* 0&#*% 0&. S(0(*"*&(% o- P* %o&% C$0 /*. (uch of the evidence in this case involves comments or statements alleged to have been uttered by Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and:or K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'. When a witness says that he or she heard Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and:or K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' say something, you have to decide whether you believe that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& or K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' made the statement or any apart of it. +egardless of who the witness is, it is still up to you to decide whether you believe him or her. In deciding whether Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and:or K '%(o)$*

B '&#$*%+' said these things, or any of them, you should use your common sense. Take into account the condition of Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and:or

K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' and of the witness or witnesses at the time of the conversation. onsider the circumstances in which the conversation took place.

%ear in mind anything else that may make the witness8s story more or less reliable. Whether a witness has recorded a conversation, or taken notes about it, does not in itself determine how reliable that witness8s testimony may be. It is, however, one of the things that you may consider in deciding whether or how much of the witness8s testimony to believe. 6nless you decide that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and:or K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' made a particular remark or statement, you must not consider it in deciding this case. $ome or all of the statements may help Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and:or

K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' in his defence. You must consider those remarks that may help Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and:or K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+', along with all of the other evidence, unless you are satisfied that they did not make them. In other words, you must consider all of the remarks that might help Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and:or K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' even if you cannot decide whether they made them. If you decide that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and:or K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' made a remark that may help them in their defence, or if you cannot decide whether they made it, you will consider that statement along with the rest of the evidence in deciding whether you have a reasonable doubt about the guilt of Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and:or K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'. You may give anything you find that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& or K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' said as much or as little importance as you think it deserves in deciding this case. It is for you to say. &nything you find Co ! T!"#$!%$!& or K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' said, however, is only part of the evidence in this case. You should consider it along with and in the same way as all the other evidence. !uring the trial I told you about a special rule that applies when someone testifies about something that one of the persons on trial said outside the courtroom. You may only use anything you find one person on trial said outside the courtroom for a limited purpose in deciding this case. &nything you find a person charged said to a witness outside the courtroom, even if it describes what any other person on trial said or did is only evidence concerning the person who said it. You must not consider it in

deciding the case of anyone other than the person who said it. "or e#ample, anything &llan 4allson or evidence concerning him. . 4. told you came from Co ! T!"#$!%$!& is only &nything &le# %rincheski told you came from

K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' is only evidence concerning him. It is for you to say how much or little importance you will place on anything you find a person charged said in deciding that person8s case. It is only part of the evidence. onsider it along with and in the same way as the

rest of the evidence relating to that person. %oth Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' testified. They were not re/uired to do so and could not be forced to do so. When a person charged with the crime testifies, he is just like any other witness. You may believe some, none or all of what he says. You

consider his testimony by applying the same tests and considering the same factors as with any other witness. 3ike any other witness, you decide how much or little you will believe of and rely upon his testimony in deciding this case. $ubject to any specific contrary instructions that I may give, you may consider the testimony of Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' to help you decide the case of both persons on trial. You do not consider that testimony only to help you decide the case of the person who testified. %oth Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' have given evidence that

tended to show that the other was involved in some way in committing the offence that you are trying. You should consider the testimony of each with particular care because he may have been more concerned about protecting himself than about telling the truth. %ear that in mind when you decide how

much or little you can believe of or rely upon what either said about the other8s involvement in deciding this case. %ecause each of Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' testified, I must give you a specific instruction about that. *ach of them testified that they had nothing to do with had !avis8s death. If you believe Co !

T!"#$!%$!&6% evidence that he did not commit the offence charged, you must find him not guilty. *ven if you do not believe Co ! T!"#$!%$!&6% evidence, if it leaves you with a reasonable doubt about his guilt, you must find him not guilty of that charge, and even if Co ! T!"#$!%$!&6% evidence does not leave you with a reasonable doubt of his guilt, you may convict him only if the rest of the evidence that you do accept proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. With respect to K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+', if you believe his evidence that he did not commit the offence charged, you must find him not guilty. *ven if you do not believe K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'6% evidence, if it leaves you with a reasonable doubt about his guilt, you must find him not guilty of that offence. &nd even if K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'6% evidence does not leave you with a reasonable doubt of his guilt, you may convict him only if the rest of the evidence that you do accept proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jo'&( P '&#')01% The theory of the rown is that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and K '%(o)$* 6nder our law a person may

B '&#$*%+' committed this offence together.

commit an offence alone or together with others, whether charged and on trial or

not. Where a criminal offence is committed by two or more persons, each may play a different part. If they are acting together, as part of a joint plan or

agreement to commit the offence, each may be found guilty of it. It is important to remember, however, that although Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' have been charged and are being tried together, each is a separate individual who cannot be found guilty of any offence unless the evidence relating to him proves his guilt of that offence beyond a reasonable doubt. *ach person is entitled to have his case decided on the basis of his own conduct and state of mind and from the evidence that may apply to him. It was evident from the evidence presented by most of the civilian witnesses that the major players were all /uite involved in the drug subculture. You heard evidence of grow ops, deals in small and large amounts of cocaine, use of drugs such as cocaine, ecstasy, pot and other substances as well as the culture of violence. This evidence was needed to show the conte#t in which had !avis as well as Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'

interacted. You are not to use the facts of this lifestyle to conclude that either Co ! T!"#$!%$!& or K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' are the sort of people likely to be responsible for the death of had !avis simply because of that lifestyle. That had !avis from the perspective

evidence was led to e#plain what happened to

of the rown and from the perspective of the accused. $pecifically with respect to Co ! T!"#$!%$!&, you heard his

admissions about having threatened &llan 4allson and

. 4. and about having . . You must not

been involved in acts of violence against a former girlfriend

use that evidence of his disposition for violence to conclude that because of those prior acts of threats or violence that he is the sort of person likely to be involved in the death of had !avis. No one can be convicted of a crime just for

being the sort of person who might have committed it. T$* C$0 /* Co ! S#o(( T!"#$!%$!& and K '%(o)$* Do& B '&#$*%+' are

charged with first degree murder. The formal charge readsC T4&T T4*Y, the said .+Y $ .TT TY( 4Y$4YN and )+I$T.24*+ !.N %+IN 4*$)I, on or about the ; th day of "ebruary, <==>, at the ity of Winnipeg, in the 2rovince of (anitoba, did unlawfully kill 4&! +&N!&33 !&DI$ and did thereby commit murder in the first degree. "or you to find Co ! T!"#$!%$!& or K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' guilty of first degree murder, rown counsel must prove each of these essential elements

beyond a reasonable doubtC A. That Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and:or K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' caused the death of <. had !avis5 and had

That Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and:or K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' caused !avis8s death unlawfully5 and

E.

That Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and:or K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' had the state of mind re/uired for murder5 and

F.

That the murder was both planned and deliberate.

*ach essential element may be made into a /uestion for you to consider carefully and answer. %ecause you must consider the evidence separately against each accused I propose to deal with Co ! T!"#$!%$!& first. 1. D'. Co ! T!"#$!%$!& #0,%* C$0. D0v'%6% .*0($; "or an act to cause someone8s death, it must be a significant contributing cause, one that is beyond something that is trifling or minor in nature. To answer this /uestion, you must consider all the evidence. !o not limit your consideration only to the opinions of the e#perts about what caused had !avis8s death. 6se your good common sense. Co ! T!"#$!%$!& testified and denied being involved in !avis8s death. 4e described how K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' had a debt to !avis of GA=,=== for his share of a kilogram of cocaine obtained from !avis for G<>,===. Co ! T!"#$!%$!& said that he gave had had had

had !avis GA>,===

near the end of ,anuary and the GA=,=== that was short was owed by K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'. K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'6% contact had changed his

number and they could not get in touch with him. 4e said that on "ebruary ;, <==>, K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' arrived at his residence at @=E 2rince +upert where they smoked some weed. 4e was nervous as he did not want to cross had !avis. -eorge 3ancaster was telling K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' how to fight had !avis and Co ! T!"#$!%$!& told K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' that he would

talk to

had !avis. $ome time later

had !avis arrived with some clones for had

the mutual grow op and Co ! T!"#$!%$!& said that he proposed that

!avis take the GA=,=== out of the weed that was going to be produced in the grow op. 4e admitted that he might have sent a te#t to K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' saying 0we8ll be in soon1. &s well, a te#t 0he8s wearing a hat, don8t miss1 was sarcastic and meant to be a joke, but he confirmed it was meant for K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'. 4e left B '&#$*%+' and took had !avis to go to the garage to meet with K '%(o)$* had !avis8s car to the hydroponic store. When he came

back, he found K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' pistol whipped and hysterical in his garage and had !avis dead on the garage floor with a bloody hammer nearby.

4e testified that he went to buy a barrel and together they cleaned up K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+', wrapped had !avis8s body in poly and headed out to

the 3ac du %onnet area, stopping at a friend8s place to drill holes in the barrel and add metal pieces to weigh it down. It was then thrown over the bridge into the 3ee +iver and a bag of garbage containing bloodied clothes, the hammer and gun were put in a %"I bin. 4e denied that he had any involvement in the death of had !avis. K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'6% evidence was very different. 4e testified that he had no drug debt to had !avis, but that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& did and had !avis to satisfy the

that Co ! T!"#$!%$!&6% truck had been taken by

debt. 4e said that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& gave him GEH= at his house at @=E 2rince +upert to buy part of an ounce of cocaine and that he had to make the buy as the person that he later reali'ed was Co ! T!"#$!%$!& anymore. had !avis would not deal with

4e described a drug deal for the ounce of

cocaine and then going shopping with his girlfriend at the time, !anielle $unley. & series of three telephone calls to his cell from Co ! T!"#$!%$!& just after <C== p.m. were about having him get back /uickly to the address at @=E 2rince +upert. 4e was met outside by Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and they went and got a barrel at a warehouse on +oute I= and brought it back to the garage. 4e testified that at that point he saw had !avis8s dead body on the garage floor

and that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& threatened that if he didn8t help him, he was as good as dead. 4e disputed that there was any gun or bloodied clothes in the garage, but that they loaded had !avis8s body into the barrel, put it in the ,eep

and that they went to a friend8s place in 3ac du %onnet for the metal junk to weigh down the barrel, then to Co ! T!"#$!%$!&6% dad8s cottage for a drill to drill the holes in the barrel and then threw the barrel into the river. 4e, as well, disputed any knowledge whatsoever of having taken part in killing had !avis. -eorge 3ancaster was a friend of Co ! T!"#$!%$!&6% mother, who admitted to e#tensive alcohol and drug use. 4e was described as a raging alcoholic who routinely drank copious amounts of beer on a daily basis and had done so for E> years. 4e testified that he saw fake walls being used for a grow operation in the garage at @=E 2rince +upert. 4e further testified that on

"ebruary ;, <==>, Co ! T!"#$!%$!& was at @=E 2rince +upert when 0%ern1 came over. 0%ern1 is the nickname for B '&#$*%+'. 4e says that he overheard the wordsC 0don8t miss1 being spoken by Co ! T!"#$!%$!& to K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' and then 0%ern1 left out the back door. 4e did not see him at any point at the front of the residence. $ome time later had !avis arrived with a

black bag and !avis and T!"#$!%$!& went out back as well. 3ancaster said

that he never saw !avis again and never saw any cabs out front of the house. +emember that on cross7e#amination, 3ancaster indicated that he was EH feet away when he overheard this commentC 0don8t miss1. 4owever, despite having spoken to the police and the rowns on several occasions, he

only told them about this comment in <=AE. 4e further admits to lying to the police at various times and drinking on a daily basis at this time. &lthough he indicated that this comment was seared in his mind, you may find that there was no reason for that to be the case as there was no indication that anything was wrong with had !avis until his body was recovered in ,uly <==>. When a witness says one thing in the witness bo#, but has said something you find to be /uite different on an earlier occasion, your common sense tells you that the fact that the witness has given different versions may be important in deciding whether or how much you believe of or rely upon the witness8s testimony. The first thing is for you to decide whether -eorge

3ancaster in fact gave an earlier and different version from his testimony of the same events. If you do not find that he gave an earlier and different version of events, please ignore what I am going to tell you about how you can use that version to help you decide this case. If you find that the witness gave an earlier version of events and you find that earlier version of events was different than his testimony, please listen carefully to what I tell you about how to use that version to help you decide this case. Not every difference or omission will be important. You should consider the facts, nature and e#tent of any differences in deciding their importance to

you in deciding whether you believe or will rely upon the witness8s testimony. It would not be difficult to determine that this comment was an important variation from his earlier testimony. You should also consider any e#planation the

witness gives for the differences. -eorge 3ancaster admitted to having lied in his first statement to police about a number of matters and that he did not tell them everything he knew. 4e said he did not want to be there and just wanted police to leave him alone. In his second statement he admitted also leaving out some information as he did not want to be involved in the case or have to testify. 4e testified that it was only in <=AE that he advised police of overhearing the commentC 0!on8t miss1 made by Co ! T!"#$!%$!& to K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'. 4e said it was because his father was dying and told him to straighten things out. +emember that even at that time -eorge 3ancaster did not want to talk to police until he had finished drinking. pl. +ouire testified that he showed -eorge 3ancaster

cell phone records so he could identify what phone calls he had made "ebruary ;, <==>, but that -eorge 3ancaster could not have seen the te#t message of 0don8t miss1 as that was on a separate page. Whatever you choose to make of the differences, you can only use the testimony given under oath in this trial as evidence of what actually happened. You cannot use the earlier statement as evidence of what actually happened unless you are satisfied the witness accepted it as true while in the witness bo#. *ven then, like the evidence of any witness, it is for you to say whether or how much you will believe of or rely upon it in reaching your decision.

This ne#t instruction applies to -eorge 3ancaster who admitted that he has been previously convicted of some criminal offences. You may only use the fact, number and nature of those convictions to help you decide how much or little you will believe of and rely upon the testimony of -eorge 3ancaster in deciding this case. $ome convictions, for e#ample ones that involve dishonesty, may be more important than others in deciding how much or little you will believe of and rely upon the testimony of a witness in deciding this case. .ther convictions, for e#ample, of driving offences, may be less important. onsider as well, whether

the previous convictions are recent or happened a number of years ago. 6se your common sense and e#perience in considering their impact. & previous conviction, even many of them, does not necessarily mean that you cannot or should not believe or rely upon their testimony to help you decide this case. The prior convictions are just one of many factors for you to consider. 6se your common sense and e#perience. -eorge 3ancaster has a criminal record for impaired driving and narcotic which dates back to AI>;. 4e has nothing since then. *stelle 3achance was a neighbor of Co ! T!"#$!%$!&6% on 2rince +upert. $he heard news of the discovery of had !avis8s body on ,uly <E,

<==>. %etween that time and when the +. .(.2. showed up at @=E 2rince +upert, she noticed the neighbours demolishing the garage. )evin (archand testified that he helped demolish the garage which was later taken to his brother, +obert (archand8s, who used it in some outbuildings until the police arrived and sei'ed the wood with plastic bits on it, presumably from the remains

of the grow op. Those plastic bits were later e#amined by !r. )enny. !r. )imberly )enney was the plastics e#pert who compared a sample of plastic taken from the barrel and the plastic found on the towels from the cleaning supplies in the back of had !avis8s ,eep. $he e#plained that they

were chemically indistinguishable, but put a caveat on that conclusion as there were many sources of plastic that had the same chemical properties. The tarp in which the body of had !avis was wrapped was found to be chemically

indistinguishable from the plastic bits found on the wood sei'ed from +obert (archand. $he put no caveat on that comparison. %oth Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' have testified that the body of had !avis was in fact wrapped in poly from that garage.

!r. 3it'enberger was the !N& e#pert who e#amined swabs taken from a part of the garage at @=E 2rince +upert. &lthough the swabs contained a minute /uantity of blood, he was able to say that the blood belonged to had

!avis and that the chance of it being from another person was A in <<= billion. 4e was not able to say, of course, when or how that droplet of blood was put there. 4owever, again, both Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' have testified that "ebruary ;, <==>. &llan 4allson testified for the rown. 4allson is still charged with had !avis was lying bloody and dead in that garage on

participating in the grow operation that he was involved in with Co ! T!"#$!%$!&. That trial has not yet been held. & rown witness who is

awaiting trial himself on a charge may have an interest in testifying favourably for the rown in this trial. "avourable testimony here may help the witness out

with his case later on, or the witness may believe that it will do so. 4allson did say that no deal had been made with any rown attorneys about his outstanding case. In addition, he has a criminal record from AIII for drive over .=>, for which he was fined and a conviction in <=== for assault cause bodily harm and fail to comply for which he received five days8 jail and two years probation. ommon sense tells you that there is good reason to look at &llan 4allson8s evidence with the greatest care and caution. You should look for some

confirmation of his evidence from somebody or something other than (r. 4allson before you rely upon it in deciding whether rown counsel has proven

the case against Co ! T!"#$!%$!& beyond a reasonable doubt. (r. 4allson and the circumstances in which he testified, might well make you wish that somebody or something else confirmed what he said. You may believe his testimony, however, if you find it trustworthy, even if no one or nothing else confirms it. When you consider it, however, keep in mind who gave the evidence and the circumstances under which he testified. T!"#$!%$!& himself corroborated much of what &llan 4allson had to say. You may find that there is some evidence in this case that confirms or supports some parts of his testimony. It is for you to say whether this or any evidence confirms or supports his testimony and how that affects whether or how much you will believe of or rely upon his testimony in deciding this case. The evidence which I will identify later illustrates the kind of evidence that you may find supports (r. 4allson8s testimony. It may help you5 it may not. It is for you to say. (r. 4allson testified that he met Co ! T!"#$!%$!& as a result of a kijiji ad placed by his daughter for some tools he wanted to sell. &s a Co !

result of a conversation with Co ! T!"#$!%$!& who bought his mitre saw, he decided to start working for him in construction. 4e testified that Co !

T!"#$!%$!& would drive him to and from jobs as of ,une <=A< and he would be alone with him for much time every day. 4e says that within about one month after he started working for Co ! T!"#$!%$!& that the latter told him that he had shot a person in the country, put him in a barrel and put him in the river by a cottage. Co ! T!"#$!%$!& further said that that person had been stealing plants from his grow op. 4e did not provide a name, but said that the deceased was his friend. 4allson said that at first he did not believe him, but that he later found out that he was on bail and started to believe in the story. 4e further testified that after a few months, he was persuaded by Co ! T!"#$!%$!& to start a grow op in his basement and that together they installed the grow op in the basement. 4e further testified that his daughter, .4., used to drop by his

residence and at one point saw the grow op in his basement and was upset by it. &t some point in .ctober of <=A<, he was sociali'ing in his residence with others and said that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& was upset about people being in the house and that a confrontation ensued. Doices were raised as well as .4., he was told he

tempers and he said that in the presence of his daughter,

had to leave his own home or he would end up the same way as his friend. 4e said further that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& said that if he went to police, he would end up like his friend, being shot and being put in a barrel. 4e further said that he had the body bags already in the trunk and that8s what he would use if anyone

crossed him. You may find that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& was referring to having killed had !avis if you find he made the comments attributed to him by &llan 4allson. 4e never referred to had !avis by name and it is clear that had

!avis was not shot but bludgeoned to death. 4owever, you may find that it was an admission to having killed a friend over drugs in the country and having put him in a barrel and then in the river by a cottage. .r you may find it was just an idle threat or boast to keep &llan 4allson in line for their joint grow op. You may find that the testimony of . 4. is confirmatory of parts of

what &llan 4allson had to say. $he has no criminal record and is employed by the ? *.0#(*.B. $he confirmed that she put his tools up for sale on kijiji in the spring of <=A< and later met Co ! T!"#$!%$!& while visiting her father. &t first she thought he was nice and helpful. &t one point, she reali'ed that there was a grow op in her father8s basement and confronted him. &s a result of

conversations with her father, her attitude towards Co ! T!"#$!%$!& changed. $he saw and talked to Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and he knew that she knew about the grow op. In this conte#t, Co ! T!"#$!%$!& asked her to meet him at ,uniors on (c2hillips $treet, where he advised her that her dad was in a lot of trouble. $he said he was an#ious and upset because &llan 4allson was telling people about the grow op. In the course of this conversation, he made the comment to herC 0The last person that fucked up ended up in a barrel.1 $he found it an odd thing to say. &s with &llan 4allson, Co ! Tymchyshyn has admitted making this comment. Was this an admission to had !avis8s death

or a threat to keep her and her father from e#posing the grow op9 4e further

asked if she had ever googled him and she said No, that she did not know how to spell his name. $he later te#ted him, asking him to spell his last name and found references to the case for which he is now on trial. $he confirmed the confrontation between her father and Co ! T!"#$!%$!&, as a result of which they left the house. $he was responsible for contacting a family friend and then the +. .(.2. and gave them information about these conversations in late .ctober <=A<. Mo('v* (otive is a reason why somebody does something. It is not one of the essential elements that rown counsel must prove. It is just part of the

evidence 77 one of many things for you to consider as you determine whether or not Co ! T!"#$!%$!& is guilty. & person may be found guilty of an offence whatever his motive or even without a motive. &bsence of proven motive is a circumstance for you to consider 77 one which, you may find, tends to support the presumption of innocence. & person may also be found not guilty of an offence even with a motive to commit it. In this case, T!"#$!%$!& to rown counsel relies on a drug debt owing by Co !

had !avis as a motive for Co ! T!"#$!%$!& to commit the had !avis for one had !avis

offence charged. Co ! T!"#$!%$!& had owed G<>,=== to

kilogram of cocaine. 4e testified that he had paid off GA>,=== to

around the end of ,anuary <==> from selling cocaine and the remaining GA=,=== was actually owed by K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' for his part of the coke. 4owever, he admitted on cross7e#amination that he may have lied to +. (.and told him he

had given

had !avis GA@7GA>,===, then saw him get in a cab and leave on

"ebruary ;th although he later /ualified that it may have been a week to a week and a half earlier. K '%(o)$* %rincheski testified that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& still owed had !avis money and that in fact his new truck had been taken by had

!avis to work off part of the debt. Co ! T!"#$!%$!& told paid off his drug debt to had !avis while

st. "reeman he had

had !avis8s score sheet ?*#hibit AHB

shows two amounts owing by 0+aspy1 or Co ! T!"#$!%$!& for G<A,H== and G<;,H==. There is no date by that notation. It is for you to decide whether Co ! T!"#$!%$!& had such a motive or any motive at all and how much or little you will rely on it to help you decide this case. Po%( O--*&#* Co&.,#( You have heard evidence that after the offence charged took place Co ! T!"#$!%$!& admitted to having purchased a barrel into which he helped place had !avis8s body, that he helped clean up K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+', that

he disposed of bloodied clothes, the -lock and a hammer in a %"I bin down the street, that he drove to 3ac du %onnet and drilled holes in the barrel and weighted it down and then assisted K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' with tossing the barrel with !avis8s body in it into the 3ee +iver. 4e also admitted that that same night on their return from 3ac du %onnet they went to !ino8s $torage where had !avis8s property was being stored and later helped clean out that locker and take all of had !avis8s personal property to K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'6%

house. 4e further admitted that he continued to associate after the killing with K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' and even formed a roofing company with him in the summer.

!id he do these things because he had taken part in the death of had !avis, or for some other reason9 What a person says or does after a crime was committed may help you decide whether it was that person who committed it. It may help, it may not. The words or conduct may indicate that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& committed the crime. .n the other hand, the words or conduct may be those of an innocent person who simply wants to avoid involvement in a police investigation. The first thing to decide is whether Co ! T!"#$!%$!& actually did or said these things. If you find that he did not do or say those things, you must not consider this evidence in reaching your verdict. If you find that Co !

T!"#$!%$!& did in fact do or say these things, you should consider ne#t whether this was because he committed the offence charged or for some other reason. If you find that what he said or did afterwards is consistent with him being conscious of having done what is alleged against him and not for some other reason, you may consider this evidence together with all the other evidence in reaching your verdict. If you do not or cannot find that he did or said those things for that reason, you must not consider this evidence in this way. The accumulation of all of the evidence may satisfy you that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& was responsible for the death of had !avis.

If you are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& caused had !avis8s death, you must find Co ! T!"#$!%$!&

not guilty. Your deliberations will be over. If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& caused had !avis8s death, you must go on to the ne#t /uestion.

<.

D'. Co ! T!"#$!%$!& #0,%* C$0. D0v'%6% .*0($ ,&105-,11!; It is not always a crime to cause another person8s death. It is a

crime, however, to cause the death of another person by an unlawful act. The unlawful act must be one that any reasonable person, in the circumstances, would think would likely put another person at risk of some harm or injury that is more than brief or minor in nature. !r. %alachandra testified that had !avis died from blunt force

trauma to the head. 4is skull was fractured in several areas. There were A< separate wounds to his head. In his e#pert opinion, the blows were caused by a rounded object like a hammer. There were no defensive wounds on his body. The nose wounds were consistent with being punched. 4e could not say what the date of death was or if the wounds were caused by one or two people. *#hibit @F is another agreed statement of facts. When the garage

at @=E 2rince +upert was searched on $eptember ;, <==>, tools, including a hammer, were seen in the garage. The hammer was not sei'ed as its forensic significance, if any, was not reali'ed by police at that time. 4owever, both Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' testified that the weapon used to kill had !avis was a bloodied hammer in the garage. If you are satisfied that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& caused had !avis8s

death, it should not be difficult to decide that it was done unlawfully. If you are not so satisfied, you must find Co ! T!"#$!%$!& not guilty. If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& unlawfully caused the death of had !avis, you must go on to the

ne#t /uestion. 3. D'. Co ! T!"#$!%$!& $0v* ($* %(0(* o- "'&. *7,' *. -o ", .* ; The crime of murder re/uires proof of a particular state of mind. "or an unlawful killing to be murder, T!"#$!%$!& meant eitherC ?iB ?iiB to kill had !avis5 or meant to cause him bodily harm that M . T!"#$!%$!& knew was likely to cause death to had !avis and were reckless whether !avis died or not. The rown does not have to prove both. .ne is enough. &ll had rown counsel must prove that Co !

of you do not have to agree on the same state of mind as long as everyone is sure that one of the re/uired states of mind has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are at this stage you will have been satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& caused unlawfully. had !avis8s death

+emember that he was killed by at least A< blows to the head. It

would not be unreasonable to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that whoever did that meant to kill had !avis or meant to cause him bodily harm

that was likely to cause death and was reckless whether he died or not. +emember that the last te#t message from had !avis was sent at A<CFACFH

p.m. on "ebruary ;, <==>. 4e was very close to @=E 2rince +upert at that time. That was followed by a te#t from Co ! T!"#$!%$!& to a phone in the name of

!anielle $unley ?and used by K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'B at A<CFECHH p.m. That te#t saidC 0we will be in soon1. &ccording to -eorge 3ancaster, K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' had been at the residence at @=E 2rince +upert for A= 7 AH minutes and had then gone out to the back shortly before had !avis arrived. If you

accept it, he also heard Co ! T!"#$!%$!& sayC 0don8t miss1 to K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' before K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' left out back. Then at A<CF>CA> there is a te#t from Co ! T!"#$!%$!&6% cell to >A=7<=>A which saidC 0he8s wearing a hat don8t miss.1 &ccording to pl. +ouire that number does not e#ist ?although he

had no notes of thatB. The number is one digit off from the number of the phone used by K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'6% of >=A7<=>A. Was that a te#t to an unknown number or was it simply a misdial or miste#t to K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'9 Co ! T!"#$!%$!& himself testified that he in fact was trying to send that te#t to K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+', but that it was just a sarcastic comment in reference to -eorge 3ancaster showing K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' bo#ing moves to protect himself against had !avis. 4e could not e#plain how the information about a had !avis was found with a hat in the

hat would somehow add to the joke.

barrel. 4is last phone or te#t communication had been sent seven ?@B minutes earlier than the te#t from Co ! T!"#$!%$!& to K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'. We know that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' never got that te#t. That te#t may still help you determine if Co ! T!"#$!%$!& meant to kill had !avis or cause him

bodily harm that he knew was likely to cause death and was reckless whether he died or not. Was this evidence that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& was warning

K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' by te#t that

had !avis was on his way to the garage

and for K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' to get ready9 .r was it just to give K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' a heads up that had !avis was on his way and mad9 .r was it

about the drug deal that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' said took place9 If you are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& meant to kill had !avis or meant to cause him bodily harm that

was likely to cause death and was reckless whether death ensued, you will find Co ! T!"#$!%$!& not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& meant to kill had !avis or meant to cause him bodily harm that

was likely to cause death and was reckless whether death ensued you will go on to the ne#t /uestion. =. 90% Co ! T!"#$!%$!&6% ", .* o- C$0. D0v'% 4o($ )10&&*. 0&. .*1'4* 0(*; Not every murder is first degree murder. T!"#$!%$!&6% murder of To prove that Co ! rown counsel

had !avis was first degree murder,

must prove beyond a reasonable doubt not only that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& murdered had !avis, but also that the murder was both planned and rown counsel to prove that the murder was

deliberate. It is not enough for

planned or that the murder was deliberate. In order to establish that the murder of had !avis was first degree murder, rown counsel must prove both. It is the murder itself that must be both planned and deliberate, not

something else that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& did or said. 2lanned is a word that we often use with talking to other people. It means the same thing here that it does when we say it to others. 2lanned means a calculated scheme or design that has been carefully thought out. The conse/uences of it have been thought over and si'ed up. The plan does not have to be complicated nor sensible. It may be a very simple plan, one that is /uite easy to set up. &n important factor is the time it took to develop the plan, not how much or little time it took between developing it and carrying it out. .ne person may prepare a plan and carry it out immediately5 another person may prepare a plan and wait awhile and /uite awhile to carry it out. & planned murder is one that is committed as a result of a scheme or plan that has been previously formulated or designed. It is the

implementation of that scheme or design. & murder committed on a sudden impulse and without prior consideration, even with an intention to kill, is not a planned murder. !eliberate is not a word that we often use when speaking to other people. It means considered, not impulsive, carefully thought out, not hasty or rash, slow in deciding, cautious. & deliberate act is one that the actor has taken time to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of. The deliberation must take place before the act of murder starts. & murder committed on a sudden impulse and without prior consideration, even with an intention to kill, is not a deliberate murder. It is

for you to say whether the murder of

had !avis was both planned and

deliberate. To decide this issue, you should consider all the evidence. &mong the things you should consider are theseC What Co ! T!"#$!%$!& did or did not do 4ow Co ! T!"#$!%$!& did or did not do it What Co ! T!"#$!%$!& said or did not say Co ! T!"#$!%$!&6% condition Co ! T!"#$!%$!&6% state of mind The position of the rown is that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& lured had

!avis to his residence and then out to the garage where K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' was waiting and that together they killed body as earlier described. The had !avis and then disposed of his

rown alleges that this took place because of an

outstanding drug debt owned by Co ! T!"#$!%$!& to had !avis. The position of Co ! T!"#$!%$!& was that he was only involved in disposing of the body after B '&#$*%+'. The position of K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' is that he was only involved in disposing of the body after had !avis was killed by Co ! T!"#$!%$!&. had !avis had been killed by K '%(o)$*

If you have reached this stage, you will have been satisfied that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& caused the death of had !avis unlawfully and with intent

to murder and the only issue at this stage will be whether or not the actions were planned and deliberate. &t this point, it may be of great value to look closely at the timing and content of the cell phone messages and te#ts between the parties. The last te#t sent by had !avis was A<CFA.FH on "ebruary ;, <==>.

The location of the cell phone tower where that te#t was sent shows that he would have been very close to @=E 2rince +upert at that time. Within two

minutes, at A<CFE.HH Co ! T!"#$!%$!& te#ted K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'> 0we will be in soon1. Is this comment innocent or revealing of a joint plan between Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'9 &nd why would Co !

T!"#$!%$!& te#t that to K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' if he is a few feet away in the garage. Was it because it was "ebruary in Winnipeg9 Ne#t te#t from Co ! T!"#$!%$!& that he intended to be received by K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'

although he misdialed was at A<CF>.A>C 0he8s wearing a hat, don8t miss1. You have the e#planation of Co ! T!"#$!%$!& that this was meant as a sarcastic comment. Co ! T!"#$!%$!& however, was unable to e#plain why mention of a hat was sarcastic or added to any joke. Is there an innocent e#planation for that te#t9 Why would he have to mention a hat if there were only two people coming and he knew Co ! T!"#$!%$!&9 4owever, you should also consider that both Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' testified that they had to go out and buy a barrel to hold the body of had !avis, although they disagreed on where it was bought.

If this killing was planned it would seem fairly shortsighted to not have thought of how to dispose of had !avis8s body. $imilarly, once the barrel was loaded into

had !avis8s ,eep, both Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' had to stop at )yle $tamler8s place in 3ac du %onnet to drill holes in the barrel and then find weights to add to the barrel to help it sink. )eep all these factors in mind. If you are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder of had !avis was both planned and deliberate, you must find Co ! T!"#$!%$!& not guilty of first degree murder, but guilty of second degree murder. If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder of had !avis was both

planned and deliberate, you must find Co ! T!"#$!%$!& guilty of first degree murder. Now I will deal with the case against K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'. The same /uestions must be asked in the case against him. 1. D'. K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' #0,%* C$0. D0v'%6% .*0($; I have already instructed you that for an act to cause someone8s death it must be a significant contributing cause or that it is beyond something that is trifling or minor in nature. To answer this /uestion, you must consider all the evidence. !o not limit your consideration only to the opinions of the e#perts about what caused had !avis8s death. 6se your good common sense. I have already discussed some of the testimony of K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'. 4e denied on the stand that he had any involvement in the death of had !avis.

You will recall his evidence about being at @=E 2rince +upert earlier that day to pick up GEH= from Co ! T!"#$!%$!& to buy one ounce of cocaine. "urther, he testified that he went to buy this ounce of cocaine because Co ! T!"#$!%$!& owed the dealer money and the dealer would not sell any more to him. 4e testified that after concluding this deal he went shopping with his

girlfriend. 4e called Co ! Tymchyshyn to say the deal had been completed at ACF@ p.m. Then he received a series of three telephone calls after <C== p.m. from Co ! T!"#$!%$!& asking him to get back /uickly to the house at @=E 2rince +upert. 6pon arrival he was met by Co ! T!"#$!%$!& who said they had to go for a ride. 4e left with him whereupon Co ! T!"#$!%$!& bought a barrel and then they returned to the garage at @=E 2rince +upert. It was at that point that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' said he saw the dead body of had !avis on

the garage floor. 4e admitted helping to put the body in the barrel, take it to 3ac du %onnet, drill holes in it and put weights in it, but denied having taken part in the death of had !avis. 4e further testified that these actions and those taken

afterwards were because he was threatened by Co ! T!"#$!%$!&. $ometimes a person charged with a crime will say it was not me, it was the other person charged who did it and will point to evidence that this other person had an opportunity and a disposition to do it. In this case, K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' is saying that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& committed the crime and points to evidence that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& is the sort of person who would do such a thing. You heard evidence of the propensity of Co ! T!"#$!%$!& for

violence. You heard about threats that were made by him to &llan 4allson and . 4. You also heard of the violent and volatile relationship that he had with his e#7girlfriend, . . This may help you decide how much weight you put on

K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'6% testimony that whatever he did was because he was aware of Co ! T!"#$!%$!&6% reputation for violence. &nd bear in mind that suggestions put to a witness that are not accepted are not evidence. It is up to you to determine whether the disposition evidence alone or together with other evidence raises a reasonable doubt that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' committed the offence charged. 4owever, as I have earlier

instructed you, you must not use the disposition evidence in any way when you consider whether rown counsel has proven the case against Co !

T!"#$!%$!&. No one can be convicted of a crime just for being the sort of person who might have committed it. You have heard evidence from K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' that he was elsewhere when the killing of had !avis was alleged to have been committed.

You heard from him that he was driven by his then girlfriend, now wife, !anielle $unley, to @=E 2rince +upert and that he left the residence after getting some money from Co ! T!"#$!%$!&. 4e testified that he then went shopping for groceries with her and she was waiting in the parking lot of the grocery lot when a drug transaction occurred between had !avis and K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'.

The te#t messageC 0we8ll be in soon1, he interpreted as the drug deal to be happening shortly. 4e testified that an argument ensued after the deal and that she dropped him back off at @=E 2rince +upert after the three frantic telephone

calls from Co ! T!"#$!%$!& would have been received sometime after <C== p.m. and presumably after had !avis had been killed in the garage. If you believe the evidence that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' was

elsewhere when the offence was committed, you must find him not guilty. If you do not believe the evidence that he was elsewhere when the offence was committed but that evidence raises a reasonable doubt in your mind that he committed the offence, you must find him not guilty, and if you do not believe the evidence that he was elsewhere when the offence was committed and that evidence does not raise a reasonable doubt in your mind that he committed it, you must consider whether the rest of the evidence that you accept satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' committed the offence charged. There is no burden or obligation on K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' to prove that he was elsewhere at the time the crime was committed. +ather it is the rown8s burden to disprove the alibi by proving K '%(o)$* presence beyond a reasonable doubt. In assessing the weight to be assigned to this evidence, consider the fact that !anielle $unley was not called as a witness by K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' in his case despite the fact that they are now married with a child. The B '&#$*%+'6%

e#planation was that she suffered from an#iety. &lso consider the fact that this alibi was never disclosed to police and that the first time it was disclosed was when K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' was on the stand testifying. That did not allow for

any investigation to be done by police about the validity of it. That may very well affect your assessment of the validity of the alibi. You will recall that the testimony of Co ! T!"#$!%$!& was /uite different. 4e testified that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' was in the garage at his residence at @=E 2rince +upert that day to transplant clones for the new grow op. 4e testified that had !avis came over and he tried to calm him down

about K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'6% outstanding GA=,=== debt for unpaid cocaine. Co ! T!"#$!%$!& testified that he left in hydroponic store and that the garage. had !avis8s car to go to the

had !avis went to talk to K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' in

When Co ! T!"#$!%$!& returned sometime later from the

hydroponic store, he found K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' hysterical and covered in blood from being pistol whipped by a -lock carried by had !avis. 4e testified had

that he was told by K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' that he had been attacked by

!avis and fell down and lashed out with a hammer thereby killing had !avis. &s well, I have been through in some detail the evidence of -eorge 3ancaster. 4e as well testified that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' had been at the residence at @=E 2rince +upert for about A= 7 AH minutes and had gone out back just before had !avis arrived. 4e also testified that he heard Co !

T!"#$!%$!& sayC 0!on8t miss1 to K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' before K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' left out back. +ecall the cautions I gave you about -eorge

3ancaster8s testimony, including his e#cessive alcohol and drug use and the fact that he only mentioned this comment in <=AE. +ecall his reasons for having waited. That comment somewhat mirrors a te#t from Co ! T!"#$!%$!&6% cell

to a number one digit off from the cell phone being used by K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' which said 0he8s wearing a hat, don8t miss1. Co ! T!"#$!%$!& admitted that he sent that te#t to K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' but that it was a sarcastic comment only. In addition, there was the evidence of &le# %rincheski. 4e testified that, when he was roofing with his brother )ris on a roof on &shmore $treet, he had a conversation with him about what had happened in the garage. &le# %rincheski tried to retract a statement that he had earlier made to the police which suggested that he had been told by his brother that his brother was in the garage when the murder occurred. You have the benefit both of the testimony of &le# %rincheski on the stand, as well as the statement that he gave to police. It is important for you to understand how to approach the testimony and consider the prior statement as evidence in this case because you can use this prior statement differently from the statements I spoke to you about earlier. %oth the testimony of &le# %rincheski and this prior statement can be used as evidence of what happened. In deciding whether or how much to believe of or rely upon the testimony of &le# %rincheski, you should apply the same principles in the same way that you do with any other witness who testifies. You should also consider the fact, nature and e#tent of any difference that you find between what the witness said here and what he said in the earlier statement in deciding how

much or little you will believe of or rely upon his testimony at trial. You may also consider the statement, e#hibit @<, as evidence that what it said happened actually took place. 3ike the witness8s testimony, it is for you to say how much or little you will believe of and rely on the statement in deciding this case. There are several factors that you should consider in deciding how much or little you will believe of and rely upon the statement as evidence of what happened in this case. Take into account what happened before &le# %rincheski made the statement that is filed as an e#hibit. onsider the circumstances of the interview at which the statement was made. !id the /uestions that were asked let the witness provide the

answers, or did the words used in the /uestions suggest to the witness the answers the /uestioner e#pected or wanted9 !id the /uestioner let the witness tell the story9 Were words put in the witness8s mouth9 *#amine to the e#tent that you can do so the behaviour of the witness during the interview. %ear in mind that you do not have the same

chance to consider the witness8s behaviour when he made the statement that you would have had if he had made the statement in court. Take into account that the witness did not make the statement in your presence, and unlike the evidence given at trial, he was not cross7e#amined when he made the statement. onsider as well that &le# %rincheski was not cross7e#amined on

the statement then like he was on his evidence at trial right after giving it.

)eep in mind any reason or chance that the witness had or may have had for not giving the whole account or telling the whole truth and giving the statement during giving evidence here. Take into account how the witness appeared when he made the statement, as well as when he said that it was untrue and testified here. What reasons, if any, did he give for his story that the statement is in whole or in part not the truth. onsider how much or little a denial of making the statement of the truth of all or some of its parts limits the effectiveness of cross7e#amination on it and your ability to assess accurately how much or little it helps you decide the case. Is the denial itself truthful or merely used to avoid answering difficult /uestions. It is clear that &le# %rincheski loves his brother )ris and was very uncomfortable being on the stand and testifying against him. ounsel

suggested that &le# %rincheski got the information he conveyed to investigators from a number of newspaper reports and rumours in the community. You will recall, however, the testimony of pl. +ouire that there was holdback pl. +ouire

information which did not appear in any newspapers. "or e#ample,

testified that no mention in the media had been made that the barrel had been weighted down. &dditionally the cause of death was not a source of information that had been publici'ed, and in fact, pl. +ouire testified that investigators did

not even know that the garage was the scene of the killing until the statement of

&le# %rincheski had been obtained. %ecause you are able to use the statement of &le# %rincheski as evidence of what K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' told him, &le# %rincheski8s actual videotaped statement is in evidence for you to consider. When the tape was played you also had a transcript of the tape. The purpose of the transcript was to help you follow what was said on the tape and by whom as it was being played. The tape has been made an e#hibit. It will be available to you in the jury where you may watch and listen to it if you need to. It is up to you to decide whether or how often you want to watch and listen to it or any part of it again. You may watch and listen to it as many times as you wish to help you determine who is speaking and what he is saying. The transcript was also filed as an e#hibit. It will be available to you in the jury room to help you figure out what is actually on the tape. %ut remember if you find any differences between the tape and the transcript either about what was said or by whom, you must rely on what you hear on the tape rather than what is in the transcript. "rom watching and listening to this tape be careful to distinguish between what &le# %rincheski says and what anyone else on the tape is saying. What another person says may help you figure out what &le# %rincheski says and what his words mean. .nly an accused person8s words as understood in conte#t can be used as evidence of what that accused person has done or intended to do. Po%( O--*&#* Co&.,#( The position of K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' was that although he was

not involved in the killing of

had !avis, that after the killing he helped Co ! had !avis wrapped in poly into a barrel and

T!"#$!%$!& load the body of

take it to 3ac du %onnet where it was thrown into the 3ee +iver. 4e says that he was threatened by Co ! T!"#$!%$!& that he would be dead himself if he didn8t cooperate and help. You heard evidence of the violent nature of Co ! T!"#$!%$!& in different circumstances. You heard Co ! T!"#$!%$!& admit that he

threatened to kill &llan 4allson and his family, that he said he would kill his daughter in front of him and then put a bullet in his head, and that he threatened to put &llan 4allson in a barrel. 4e admitted that he intimidated people when they didn8t do what he wanted. 4e further admitted that when he met with . 4.

he told her that the last guy who screwed up ended up in a barrel and that if he ended up in jail over this mutual grow op that everyone would be shot. 4e further talked about other people being killed over drug debts. 4e admitted it was a possibility that he bragged about killing other people. You further heard about how he was physically violent in his previous relationship with . ., that

she had a broken ankle from an incident involving a car. 4e agreed that it was possible that he had threatened to burn her alive or to cement her and put her in a barrel and put her in a lake, and that if he found out she was cheating, he would pour gas on her and watch her burn. 4e admitting carrying brass

knuckles occasionally and that he had used them once. &ll of this evidence of threats and violence involving Co ! T!"#$!%$!& is only evidence to be used in considering K '%(o)$*

B '&#$*%+'6% e#planation for his being involved in the disposing of body after the fact.

had !avis8s

What a person says or does after a crime is committed may help you decide whether it was that person who committed it. It may help, it may not. The words or conduct may indicate that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' committed the crime. .n the other hand, the words of conduct may be those of an innocent person who simply wants to avoid involvement in a police investigation or is genuinely afraid for his own safety and thereby gets involved. The first thing to decide is whether K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' actually did or said these things. If you find that he did not do or say these things, you must not consider this evidence in reaching your verdict. If you find that he did in fact do or say these things, you should consider ne#t whether this was because he had committed the offence charged or for some other reason. If you find that what he did or said after the death of had !avis is consistent with

him being conscious of having done what is alleged against him and not for some other reason, you may consider this evidence together with all the other evidence in reaching your verdict. If you do not or cannot find that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' said or did those things for that reason, he must not consider this evidence in this way. In other words, K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' has admitted to being involved after the fact in the disposition of had !avis8s body. Is the

reason for his involvement the threats that he says were leveled at him by Co ! T!"#$!%$!& or was it because he was more involved in the death of !avis than he let on9 had

You will also want to consider the fact that after disposing of

had

!avis8s body, he ended up going into business with Co ! T!"#$!%$!& several months later. &nd you will also want to consider that A; days after had !avis

was killed that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' along with Co ! T!"#$!%$!& went to !ino8s $torage and emptied the locker of had !avis8s belongings. These were

all taken to K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'6% house and thereafter although he says he was haunted by the death of brother used had !avis and his involvement, it is clear that his had !avis8s property

had !avis8s bed, he had possession of

and went so far as to wear his shoes and watch his T.D.s. Mo('v* (otive is the reason why someone does something. It is not one of the essential elements that rown counsel must prove. It is just part of the

evidence, one of many things for you to consider as you determine whether K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' is guilty. & person may be found guilty of an offence whatever his motive or even without a motive. &bsence of proven motive, however, is a circumstance for you to consider, one which you may find tends to support the presumption of innocence. & person may also be found not guilty of an offence even with a motive to commit it. In this case, rown counsel relies on greed as a motive for

K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' to commit the offence charged. It is apparent from the evidence that he was in significant financial distress at the time that was killed. 4is credit rating was +I, the worst possible. &fter had !avis

had !avis was

killed K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' ended up with all of

had !avis8s property,

including a large screen television, a bed, household goods, lamps, T.D., !D!s, e#pensive jewellery and clothing. It is for you to decide whether K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' had such a motive or any motive at all and how much or little you will rely on it to help you decide this case. The accumulation of all of the evidence may satisfy you that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' was responsible for the death of had !avis. If you are

not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' caused had !avis8s death, you must find K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' not guilty. deliberations will be over. If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' caused had !avis8s death, you must go on to the ne#t /uestion. <. D'. K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' #0,%* C$0. D0v'%6% .*0($ ,&105-,11!; It is not always a crime to cause another person8s death. It is a crime, however, to cause the death of another person by an unlawful act. The unlawful act must be one that any reasonable person, in the circumstances, would think would likely put another person at risk of some harm or injury that is more than brief or minor in nature. !r. %alachandra testified that had !avis died from blunt force You

trauma to the head. 4is skull was fractured in several areas. There were A< separate wounds to his head. In his e#pert opinion, the blows were caused by a rounded object like a hammer. There were no defensive wounds on his body.

4e could not say what the date of death was or if the wounds were caused by one or two people. *#hibit @F is another agreed statement of facts. When the garage

at @=E 2rince +upert was searched on $eptember ;, <==>, tools, including a hammer, were seen in the garage. The hammer was not sei'ed as its forensic significance, if any, was not reali'ed by police at that time. 4owever, both

K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' and Co ! T!"#$!%$!& testified that the weapon used to kill had !avis was a bloodied hammer in the garage. If you are satisfied that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' caused had !avis8s death, it should not be difficult to decide that it was done unlawfully. If you are not so satisfied, you must find K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' not guilty. If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' unlawfully caused the death of ne#t /uestion. 3. D'. K '%(o)$* ", .* ; B '&#$*%+' $0v* ($* %(0(* o- "'&. *7,' *. -o had !avis, you must go on to the

The crime of murder re/uires proof of a particular state of mind. "or an unlawful killing to be murder, B '&#$*%+' meant eitherC ?iB ?iiB to kill had !avis5 or meant to cause him bodily harm that M . B '&#$*%+' knew was likely to cause death to !avis died or not. had !avis and were reckless whether had rown counsel must prove that K '%(o)$*

The rown does not have to prove both. .ne is enough.

&ll

of you do not have to agree on the same state of mind as long as everyone is sure that one of the re/uired states of mind has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are at this stage you will have been satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that K '%(o)$* unlawfully. B '&#$*%+' caused had !avis8s death

+emember that he was killed by at least A< blows to the head. It

would not be unreasonable to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that whoever did that meant to kill had !avis or meant to cause him bodily harm

that was likely to cause death and was reckless whether he died or not. +emember that the last te#t message from had !avis was sent at A<CFACFH

p.m. on "ebruary ;, <==>. 4e was very close to @=E 2rince +upert and the $uperstore at that time. That was followed by a te#t from Co ! T!"#$!%$!& to a phone in the name of !anielle $unley ?and used by K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'B at A<CFECHH p.m. That te#t saidC 0we will be in soon1. &ccording to -eorge 3ancaster, K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' had been at the residence at @=E 2rince +upert for A= 7 AH minutes and had then gone out to the back some time before had !avis arrived. If you accept it, he also heard Co ! T!"#$!%$!& sayC 0don8t miss1 to K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' before K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' left out back. Then at A<CF>CA> there is a te#t from Co ! T!"#$!%$!&6% cell to >A=7 <=>A which saidC 0he8s wearing a hat don8t miss.1 &ccording to pl. +ouire that number does not e#ist ?although he

had no notes of thatB. The number is one digit off from the number of the phone

used by K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'6% of >=A7<=>A. Was that a te#t to an unknown number or was it simply a misdial or miste#t to K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'9 Co ! T!"#$!%$!& himself testified that he in fact was trying to send that te#t to K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+', but that it was just a sarcastic comment in reference to -eorge 3ancaster showing K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' bo#ing moves to protect himself vs. had !avis. 4e could not e#plain how the information about a hat had !avis was found with a hat in the barrel.

would somehow add to the joke.

4is last phone or te#t communication had been sent seven ?@B minutes earlier than the te#t from Co ! T!"#$!%$!& to K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'. We know that K '%(o)$* %rincheski never got that te#t. That te#t may still help you had !avis or cause him

determine if K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' meant to kill

bodily harm that he knew was likely to cause death and was reckless whether he died or not. Was this evidence that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& was warning had !avis was on his way to the garage had !avis

K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' by te#t that

and for K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' to get ready9 Was it warning that

was mad9 .r was it a te#t about the drug transaction to which K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' testified9 If you are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' meant to kill had !avis or meant to cause him bodily harm that

was likely to cause death and was reckless whether death ensued, you will find K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' meant to kill had !avis or meant to cause him bodily harm that

was likely to cause death and was reckless whether death ensued you will go on to the ne#t /uestion. =. 90% K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'6% ", .* o- C$0. D0v'% 4o($ )10&&*. 0&. .*1'4* 0(*; Not every murder is first degree murder. To prove that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'6% murder of had !avis was first degree murder, rown counsel

must prove beyond a reasonable doubt not only that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' murdered had !avis, but also that the murder was both planned and rown counsel to prove that the murder was

deliberate. It is not enough for

planned or that the murder was deliberate. In order to establish that the murder of had !avis was first degree murder, rown counsel must prove both. It is the murder itself that must be both planned and deliberate, not something else that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' did or said. 2lanned is a word that we often use with talking to other people. It means the same thing here that it does when we say it to others. 2lanned means a calculated scheme or design that has been carefully thought out. The conse/uences of it have been thought over and si'ed up. The plan does not have to be complicated nor sensible. It may be a very simple plan, one that is /uite easy to set up. &n important factor is the time it took to develop the plan, not how much or little time it took between developing it and carrying it out. .ne person may prepare a plan and carry it out immediately5 another person may prepare a plan and wait awhile and /uite awhile to carry it out.

& planned murder is one that is committed as a result of a scheme or plan that has been previously formulated or designed. It is the

implementation of that scheme or design. & murder committed on a sudden impulse and without prior consideration, even with an intention to kill, is not a planned murder. !eliberate is not a word that we often use when speaking to other people. It means considered, not impulsive, carefully thought out, not hasty or rash, slow in deciding, cautious. & deliberate act is one that the actor has taken time to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of. The deliberation must take place before the act of murder starts. & murder committed on a sudden impulse and without prior consideration, even with an intention to kill, is not a deliberate murder. It is for you to say whether the murder of had !avis was both planned and

deliberate. To decide this issue, you should consider all the evidence. &mong the things you should consider are theseC What K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' did or did not do 4ow K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' did or did not do it What K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' said or did not say K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'6% condition K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'6% state of mind

The position of the

rown is that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& lured

had

!avis to his residence and then out to the garage where K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' was waiting and that together they killed body as earlier described. The had !avis and then disposed of his

rown alleges that this took place because of an had !avis and greed

outstanding drug debt owned by Co ! T!"#$!%$!& to on the part of K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'.

The position of Co ! T!"#$!%$!& was that he was only involved in disposing of the body after B '&#$*%+'. The position of K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' is that he was only involved in disposing of the body after had !avis was killed by Co ! T!"#$!%$!&. had !avis had been killed by K '%(o)$*

If you have reached this stage, you will have been satisfied that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' caused the death of had !avis unlawfully and with

intent to murder and the only issue at this stage will be whether or not the actions were planned and deliberate. &t this point, it may be of great value to look closely at the timing and content of the cell phone messages and te#ts between the parties. The last te#t sent by had !avis was A<CFA.FH on

"ebruary ;, <==>. The location of the cell phone tower where that te#t was sent shows that he would have been very close to @=E 2rince +upert or at $uperstore at that time. Within two minutes, at A<CFE.HH Co ! T!"#$!%$!& te#ted K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'> 0we will be in soon1. Is this comment innocent or revealing of a joint plan between Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and K '%(o)$*

B '&#$*%+'9

&nd why would Co ! T!"#$!%$!& te#t that to K '%(o)$*

B '&#$*%+' if he is a few feet away in the garage. The ne#t te#t from Co ! T!"#$!%$!& that he intended to be received by K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'

although he misdialed was at A<CF>.A>C 0he8s wearing a hat, don8t miss1. You have the e#planation of Co ! T!"#$!%$!& that this was meant as a sarcastic comment. Co ! T!"#$!%$!& however, was unable to e#plain why mention of a hat was sarcastic or added to any joke. Is there an innocent e#planation for that te#t9 We know that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' never received the te#t. 4owever, you should also consider that both Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' testified that they had to go out and buy a barrel to hold the body of had !avis, although they disagreed on where it was bought.

If this killing was planned it would seem fairly shortsighted to not have thought of how to dispose of had !avis8s body. $imilarly, once the barrel was loaded into

had !avis8s ,eep, both Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' had to stop at )yle $tamler8s place in 3ac du %onnet to drill holes in the barrel and then find weights to add to the barrel to help it sink. )eep all these factors in mind. If you are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder of had !avis was both planned and deliberate, you must find K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' not guilty of first degree murder, but guilty of second degree murder. If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder of had !avis

was both planned and deliberate, you must find K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' guilty of first degree murder.

JJJ You will have a verdict sheet on which to record your verdicts. Po%'('o&% o- ($* P0 ('*% I will now review the positions of the parties. There is no

significance to the order in which I deal with them and no hidden messages that I am trying to impart to you. I will review the positions in the order in which counsel addressed you. +emember, however, that the onus is on the rown

throughout to satisfy you of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and that burden never shifts. Po%'('o& o- D*-*&#* Co,&%*1 The position of counsel for Co ! T!"#$!%$!& is that he was not at all involved in the killing of had !avis. ounsel submits that Co !

T!"#$!%$!& had no motive and there was no evidence presented that he owed money to had !avis as alleged by the rown. $he says he was not had !avis because

financially in difficulty and that he had rented his car out to

it was registered to someone without a criminal record. 4e admitted lying to the police when they were originally investigating the disappearance of had !avis,

but stresses that that was obvious since he did not want to admit he was involved in selling drugs. ounsel submits that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' was lying and tailored his evidence to suit the evidence already heard. $he /uestions why you did not

hear from !anielle $unley if she could verify K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'6% story and asks why the gloves in the barrel would be put in there to frame K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' when he himself said he had never been in the garage before that fateful day. ounsel for Co ! T!"#$!%$!& stresses that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& was being truthful in his testimony and candidly admitted the threats that were made to &llan 4allson and killed .4., but that these were not an admission of having

had !avis but bravado to keep them in line and to keep them from

e#posing the grow op that was in &llan 4allson8s basement. With respect to -eorge 3ancaster, counsel stresses that he is a long7time alcoholic and that the only time he revealed the comment he said he heard from Co ! T!"#$!%$!& to K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' of 0don8t miss1 was in <=AE. $he stressed his comment that he was fre/uently 0recreating shit in my own mind1. Co ! T!"#$!%$!& does admit to sending the te#ts that are at the center of this caseC 0we8ll be in soon1, which relates to bringing clones into the garage and the second one ofC 0he8s wearing a hat, don8t miss1, which was a sarcastic reference to -eorge 3ancaster trying to show K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' how to bo# and defend himself against had !avis.

3astly counsel for Co ! T!"#$!%$!& says that there was no element of planning and deliberation involved as the fact that they had to run out to get a barrel and find a drill to drill holes in the barrel after the killing shows

nothing more than panic. .verall the position of Co ! T!"#$!%$!&6% counsel is that he should be believed that he did not kill had !avis. The position of counsel for K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' is that he did not kill had !avis, but that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& did. ounsel stressed that Co !

T!"#$!%$!& is a violent man who would do anything to get what he wanted and that he had a pattern of charming and then threatening people to get what he wanted. ounsel stressed the testimony of &llan 4allson who she described as a patsy like K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' and the threats made to him that she says are admissions to Co ! T!"#$!%$!& having been involved in the killing of had !avis. %oth he and . 4. believed the threats that were directed towards

them as did K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' who helped Co ! T!"#$!%$!& dispose of the body because of those threats. stressed that he had no motive to kill 4is name does not appear in ounsel for K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'

had !avis and no drug debt whatsoever.

had !avis8s score sheet or diary. No one other

than Co ! T!"#$!%$!& ever said that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' owed money to had !avis. $he stressed that Co ! T!"#$!%$!&6% testimony was full of lies. 4is story changed as to where he got the keys to made no sense that had !avis8s car from and it

had !avis would have left his car unlocked with valuable

property inside. $he also said he lied about the entries in the score sheet since Co ! T!"#$!%$!& said he had one transaction for cocaine with had !avis

and then later indicated the reference to money owing may have been from a different dealing in coke. ounsel urged you to take a look at the timing of telephone calls and that calls made using the *lan tower that would go there if the tower at (unroe was blocked. ertain calls that bounced off the *lan tower were made when it

can be shown that individuals were at @=E 2rince +upert, and thus when Co ! T!"#$!%$!& called K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' after killing had !avis, he was

not out getting the barrel but was in fact at @=E 2rince +upert. $he further says that the numerous telephone calls to . a.8s number after they both went to

!ino8s $torage are very good evidence that contrary to what Co ! T!"#$!%$!& said, he received to . a. &s far as the testimony of &le# %rincheski, counsel admits that &le# %rincheski did know details of what had taken place because his brother, K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+', had in fact been in the garage that day and had seen the body of killing. The te#ts between Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+', she says, are consistent with having taken part in the cocaine transaction to which K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' testified. &nd finally she stresses that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' was guilty of bad judgment in taking the personal property of had !avis, but that he was had !avis. These were not admissions of having taken part in the had !avis8s cocaine from the locker and was trying to sell it

only involved in helping dispose of the body because of threats that had been leveled at him by Co ! T!"#$!%$!&. C o5&6% Po%'('o& The planned to lure rown submits that the evidence is clear that both accused had !avis to the garage and kill him and that they did. They

both have agreed that they loaded up the body into the barrel and dumped it in the river by 3ac du %onnet, but both are pointing fingers to each other and cannot both be telling the truth. The rown said that neither brought evidence to support their

position. K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' presented no grocery slip from where he was shopping, nor did he call his wife, !anielle $unley, to confirm his alibi. Co ! T!"#$!%$!& did not have any receipt from the hydroponic store. rown submits that the motive was debt and greed. The says that Co ! T!"#$!%$!& had an outstanding significant debt to rown

had !avis

for cocaine as evidenced in the score sheet that had not been paid off. &s well, he had a pregnant girlfriend. K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' had a terrible credit rating and little to no money available to him, as well as a cocaine habit. The rown submits that both accused are lying. &s far as Co ! rown submits that he lied about where he got 4e lied to police about had !avis8s

T!"#$!%$!& is concerned, the the keys to

had !avis8s car from.

whereabouts. 4e lied about going to !ino8s $torage, and reali'ing that there was no cocaine in the storage locker. The rown urges you to look at the

number of te#ts and calls to

.

a. the high level partner of

had !avis in

cocaine dealing, that occurred within minutes of the locker at !ino8s $torage being accessed. The rown says that K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' lied about

rushing back to Winnipeg to tear down the grow op the day the body was discovered as receipts show he was staying in 3ac du %onnet and making phone calls from there on that day. The rown submits that despite his problems with alcohol and drugs

that -eorge 3ancaster was right on almost everything to which he testified, and that really the only matter that was disputed by Co ! T!"#$!%$!& was -eorge 3ancaster8s comment that he overheard Co ! T!"#$!%$!& sayC 0don8t miss1 to K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'. &s far as the evidence of &llan 4allson and .4., the rown takes

issue with the position of Co ! T!"#$!%$!& that this was only bravado and asks why if you need to threaten someone, you would use a barrel analogy unless that was a confession to having been involved in the prior matter. &s far as K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' was concerned, the rown

stresses that the motive was to get access to drugs and all of the personal property of had !avis with him gone. The rown submits that K '%(o)$*

B '&#$*%+'6% testimony about having gone to meet the person who turned out to be had !avis is unbelievable because had !avis was a high level dealer

and would be unlikely to be selling one ounce of cocaine to a perfect stranger. The rown stresses that it also made no sense for him to then leave that

cocaine in the car while he went shopping with his girlfriend. The rown further scoffs at K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'6% evidence that had !avis because he ended up

he was haunted by what had happened to

with all of his personal property and was using it. The rown also asks you to look carefully at the evidence of &le#

%rincheski who in his statement to police stressed that he was not trying to 0make stuff up1 and in fact told his girlfriend to tell the truth. There was evidence that &le# %rincheski knew information that had not been released to the media, and in fact the police did not even know the garage was the scene of the crime until they talked to &le# %rincheski. &nd lastly, the rown asks you to look at the timeline of the te#ts rown

and telephone calls between the various parties involved. .verall the

submits that they have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that both Co ! T!"#$!%$!& and K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+' were involved in a planned and deliberate murder of C1o%'&/ R*"0 +% This is the end of my charge to you, and I would like to conclude by dealing with your duties as jurors in the jury room. When you go to your jury room, it is your duty to consult with one another and to deliberate with a view to reaching a just verdict on the charge against the accused based on the evidence you have seen and heard. Your verdicts will be based, as I have stated earlier, on the facts as you find them and on the law as I have e#plained it had !avis.

to you. You will be given the indictment and e#hibits to take with you to the jury room so that you may consider them there. !o not take a dogmatic position. When you enter the jury room and commence your deliberations, I ask that you not make emphatic e#pressions of opinion or e#press a determination to stand for a particular verdict. If you

proceed that way, it makes it difficult for you to consider the wisdom of your fellow jurors. )eep an open mind. 3isten in a calm and impartial manner to what is said by your fellow jurors and put your own views forward in a reasonable way. Your function is not that of advocates whose duty it is to argue one side or the other. You are judges and, if you approach your deliberations calmly, putting forward your own views and your reasons and listening attentively to the views of others, you will be able to arrive at a just and proper verdict on the charge. If you have not already done so, you should select a foreperson who will preside over your discussions. The foreperson should give every juror an opportunity to state his or her views, but should also try to keep the discussion from wandering far afield or from being repetitive on any one point. When you arrive at a verdict, the foreperson will announce that verdict to the court. When we began this trial, I told you that you could take notes to help you remember what any witness said in testifying here. $ome of you have done so. You may take your notes with you to the jury room for your use during your deliberations.

Your notes are not evidence, any more than the notes that I make or the lawyers make are evidence. The only purpose for which you may use your notes during your deliberations is to help you remember what a witness said or showed, for e#ample, on an e#hibit. It is also important to remember that the notes are those of the note7 taker, not someone else. memories of the evidence. & jury8s decision is a group decision. *veryone has a say, an e/ual say. We depend on the memory and judgment of each one of you to decide this case. !o not simply defer to the person who is or seems to be the best note7 taker. Notes do not make decisions, jurors do. Included in the things that will go with you to the jury room is a verdict sheet. .n this sheet, I have listed the verdicts that you may reach in this case. There is no significance to the order in which the verdicts are listed. If you reach a verdict, your foreperson should place a checkmark in the bo# opposite the verdict you have reached. The evidence and the issues raised in this case leave the following verdicts for you to considerC Co ! T!"#$!%$!&> A. <. -uilty of first degree murder5 or Not guilty of first degree murder, but guilty of second degree murder5 or They may or may not coincide with other jurors8

E.

Not

guilty

of

second

degree

murder,

but

guilty

of

manslaughter5 or F. Not guilty.

K '%(o)$* B '&#$*%+'> A. <. -uilty of first degree murder5 or Not guilty of first degree murder, but guilty of second degree murder5 or E. Not guilty of second degree murder, but guilty of

manslaughter5 or F. Not guilty.

If you reach a verdict, please tell the jury usher that you have made your decision, but do not tell the usher what decision you have made. We will reconvene the court and bring you back into the courtroom to hear your decision. Your foreperson should bring the verdict sheet into court with him or her when we reconvene. It is the foreperson8s responsibility to announce your verdict in the courtroom. You do not give reasons for your decision. When you go to your jury room, your duty is to consult with each other and to deliberate with a view to reaching a just verdict. Your verdict must be based on the facts as you find them from all the evidence introduced at trial and on the law that I have told you applies in this case.

You will have several things provided for you during your deliberations. &nything that has been made an e#hibit during the trial will be sent to the jury room for you to e#amine to the e#tent and in the manner you may wish to do so. When you begin your deliberations, you should not start out by emphatically e#pressing your opinion or declaring your intention to stand for a particular verdict no matter what others may think or say. To proceed in that fashion makes it very hard for you to take into account the views and wisdom of your fellow jurors. )eep an open mind, but not an empty head. !o not just talk. 3isten too. 2ut forward your views in a reasonable way. 3isten in a calm and impartial manner to what your fellow jurors have to say. ,urors are not

advocates who have a duty, like the lawyers here, to argue the case for the rown or for the defence, as the case may be. ,urors are judges. If you approach your deliberations calmly, putting forward your own views and listening carefully to what others have to say, you will be able to reach a just and proper verdict. It is the responsibility of the foreperson to be the chair of the meeting, to guide the deliberations along, to prevent them from becoming protracted or descending into unnecessary repetition of matters already decided. %e firm in your leadership, but be fair to everyone. "or there to be a verdict in this case, it is necessary for all twelve jurors to agree about the decision. In other words, a verdict, whether of not

guilty or guilty, e#presses the unanimous opinion of the jury. $ometimes jurors are unable to reach a verdict. 6nder our law, jurors have the right to disagree. No jury, however, will ever be in any better or different position to decide this case than you are now. &fter you retire, I will be discussing my charge with (r. *yrikson and (r. !avidson, on the one hand, and (s +oberta ampbell, (s. )risten ,ones,

(s. -erri Wiebe and (s. (ichelle %right, on the other hand, and they may have some matters they wish corrected or some matters on which they wish me to give you further instructions. There is nothing unusual about that. I may have made some error or have overlooked something. If I do call you back to deal with such an oversight, do not give any special emphasis to what I say to you at that time. ,ust regard any additional instructions as if I had dealt with those matters in this charge. In considering your verdict, you must not concern yourselves with the conse/uences. That is completely irrelevant to your deliberations and to your responsibilities. In determining the guilt or innocence of the accused, the subject of penalty or punishment should not be discussed or considered by you. The evidence was taken down by a monitor. If there is any conflict among yourselves as to what was said by a witness and you cannot resolve it, then just hand a note to the jury usher setting out the information that you want. The jury usher will pass it on to me. You may be satisfied if I read my own notes, but they will not be a verbatim reproduction of what the witness said. You

may elect to have the evidence read back by the court clerk if you wish. This may be a simple or more time7consuming task, depending upon the nature of the in/uiry and the testimony itself. Kuestions and answers relating to your in/uiry may be easily separated from the rest of the evidence, but if not, then the whole of the e#amination7in7chief and all of the cross7e#amination and re7 e#amination must be repeated. 2lease understand that you have every right to ask that the evidence be repeated, no matter how long it takes. If there is anything in these instructions about which you are not clear, I will be available to answer your /uestions. If you have a /uestion, please have your foreperson put it in writing in a sealed envelope and give it to the jury usher. &fter I have received your /uestion, I will discuss the answer to it with the lawyers in your absence. &fter that, you will be brought back into the courtroom and your /uestion read out, followed by my answer. I will answer every proper /uestion you have as /uickly and completely as I can. .nce you retire to consider your verdict, the law re/uires that you be kept separate and apart from outside contacts until you reach your verdict. &fter that, you will be free to leave the courthouse and return to your homes or places of business. You have taken an oath or made a solemn affirmation to well and truly try this case and to render a true verdict according to the evidence. If you honour that oath or affirmation, as I am sure you will, you will have done everything that is e#pected of you as jurors in this trial. We ask for nothing

more. We e#pect and are entitled to nothing less. (embers of the jury, you may now retire to consider your verdicts. &re there any representations from counsel9

PAGE 42 PAGE 99