Judge scolds Crown, ends trial of man accused of killing mom

A judge lambasted Crown prosecutors Monday as he ordered a stay of proceedings in a case against a man accused of killing his mother when he was 16 years old.

Court of King’s Bench Justice Ken Champagne said there was no possible remedy to a series of actions taken by the prosecution that denied the man, who is now 23, the right to a fair trial.

Family members and supporters broke out in tears and applause after Champagne announced his decision.

“The nightmare is over finally,” one woman said, wiping tears from her eyes. “This should never have happened.”

Champagne’s decision, delivered after two stay applications from the defence made in the absence of the jury, focused primarily on the Crown’s cross examination of the accused, saying it was indicative of a “win at any cost” mentality.

“The nightmare is over finally.”

The man was charged with second-degree murder in the March 26, 2019, killing of his 51-year-old mother.

The Free Press is not naming the victim as it would identify the accused, who was a teen at the time of the killing. This was the second time the man was on trial for his mother’s murder.

The victim was found bludgeoned to death in her bedroom at her Southdale home. Prosecutors argued the woman’s son, the only other person who lived in the house, had exclusive opportunity to kill the woman and left the house for 90 minutes that morning to run errands to provide himself with an alibi.

Defence lawyer James Lockyer said there was no evidence the accused had anything but a loving relationship with his mother. He argued the victim was killed by a co-worker she had accused of sexually harassing her.

Jurors heard the victim had been off work for an extended time due to an injury and that the accused, who lived with his mother every second week, did much of the grocery shopping, cooking and house cleaning.

Champagne took over 40 minutes to deliver his decision, excoriating prosecutors and describing various lines of questioning as “spurious,” “baseless,” “unfounded,” and “highly prejudicial.”

Unlike at his first trial, the accused testified at his second trial, which began Feb. 9.

“By taking the witness box, (the accused) provided the Crown an opportunity to manufacture a motive to kill his mother by suggesting spurious accusations, knowing there was no evidence to support the accusations,” Champagne said.

During a lengthy cross-examination, prosecutor Adam Bergen asked the accused questions about his mother dying without a will and whether her estate would pass to him as her next living relative.

“This was a highly prejudicial series of questions intended to suggest the (the accused) had a financial motive to murder his mother.”

“This was a highly prejudicial series of questions intended to suggest the (the accused) had a financial motive to murder his mother,” Champagne said.

There is no evidence the then-16-year-old accused knew his mother did not have a will, the value of her estate, or whether he stood to inherit it, Champagne said.

“This line of questioning was a deliberate and calculated trap for (the accused),” Champagne said. “He answered the questions honestly and in doing so provided the Crown with circumstantial evidence of a financial motive… Knowing there was no evidence of a financial motive for (the accused) to murder his mother, the Crown deliberately manufactured evidence of a financial motive, which offends the truth-seeking function of a trial and misleads the jury.”

The trial heard testimony that on the night before the killing the accused made dinner for his mother and her boyfriend and that they all watched the Jets game on television.

The accused “had what appeared to be a great relationship with his mother,” the victim’s then-boyfriend Lorne Vandersteen told jurors.

“He would basically do things around the house I wish my kids would have done at that age,” he said. “He would clean the house, he would cook dinner, he would do laundry, most of it without asking, without complaint. “He was congenial, amicable, easy to get along with, easy to joke with.”

Prosecutors suggested the accused killed his mother to end her pain, or because he feared he would be saddled as her caregiver.

“The Crown takes all the evidence that confirms a strong bond between mother and son and turns it upside down to make unfounded allegations he killed his mother because he did not want to see her suffer any longer,” Champagne said.

“The suggestion flies in the face of evidence as she was recovering from injury and had planned to return to work the following week,” he said. “These outrageous allegations are contrary to all of the evidence.”

In another line of questioning, prosecutors elicited testimony about the accused crying as he discussed his concern about his mother with a school counsellor. That exchange was previously deemed privileged and off limits by the first trial judge.

Bergen argued the questioning was fair game because he referred to the staff member the accused spoke to as a teacher, not a counsellor.

Champagne rejected the argument as “disingenuous.”

“The Crown was fully aware any tears shed at school were in front of a counsellor,” he said.

Champagne said the repeated “misconduct” of the Crown carried a serious risk of a miscarriage of justice.

“This has not been a fair trial.”

“A final decision from the jury on the merits (of the case) can only be made after a fair trial,” Champagne said. “This has not been a fair trial… This is the clearest of cases for a stay of proceedings.”

Lockyer said Champagne’s ruling was “a big relief” for his client.

“Thursday is the seventh anniversary of his mother’s death,” Lockyer said. “Finally, he is going to be able to really grieve for her.”

Lockyer, who frequently makes headlines for his work with Innocence Canada, said this is the first trial outside Ontario that he has taken in his nearly 50-year legal career.

“I always believed in the young person’s case, and I did the trial for that reason,” he said.

The Crown has 30 days to appeal Champagne’s ruling.

“I hope they won’t,” Lockyer said. “Seven years is long enough for this case to go on, but that remains to be seen.”

dean.pritchard@freepress.mb.ca