Jurors consider degree of guilt

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 20/04/2011 (5312 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A Winnipeg jury is being asked to get inside the head of a confessed multiple killer to determine exactly how guilty he really is.

Colton Patchinose, 21, admits gunning down three people and seriously injuring three others during a March 2008 ambush inside a Winnipeg house party. But he has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder on the basis the shootings weren’t “planned or pre-meditated,” as required by law.

Defence lawyers Mike Cook and Pam Smith wrapped up the high-profile trial on Tuesday by urging jurors to find their client guilty of only second-degree murder.

“We admit it was an intentional killing… but intent to kill is not tantamount to planned and deliberate,” said Cook. “We agree he had the intent to kill but it arose just before the shooting occurred. His articulated intent up to that point was just to shoot up the place.”

The Crown told jurors they should have no difficulty finding Patchinose guilty as charged when they begin deliberations today.

The difference in degrees of murder are important because of potential parole eligibility. A conviction for first-degree murder is an automatic life sentence with no chance of parole for at least 25 years, while second-degree could see parole eligibility set as low as 10 years.

Canada doesn’t currently allow for consecutive sentences when there are multiple murder victims, as was the case here. Much of the Crown’s case against Patchinose is built on the evidence of another man who was originally arrested, only to have his charges dropped. Howard Roulette, 28, has close ties with the accused and testified last week about the events leading up to, and following, the shooting spree inside the Alexander Avenue home.

Scott Lavallee, 31, Jennifer Ward, 26, and Corey Keeper, 22, died after being struck at close range by at least eight of the 19 bullets fired that night. Nearly 30 people had gathered at the home for a party, including Roulette and Patchinose. The two men had met each other weeks earlier because their girlfriends were roommates, jurors were told.

Patchinose allegedly told Roulette he wanted to leave the party. Roulette was driving his car that night and claims he took Patchinose to a house on Pritchard Avenue, where he was told to wait outside. Patchinose emerged a few minutes later with a youth co-accused and allegedly told Roulette he wanted to return to the home on Alexander. On the way there, Patchinose and the youth allegedly produced guns, with Patchinose allegedly saying he wanted to go back inside and “shoot the place up.”

Roulette claims he balked at their plans and said he didn’t want to be involved.

Roulette’s credibility is a key issue for jurors to consider, as defence lawyers are trying to paint him as a liar with a personal agenda.

www.mikeoncrime.com