Crown wrongheaded to pursue case against man for mom’s slaying

The Manitoba Prosecution Service’s decision to appeal a stay of proceedings against a young offender charged with murdering his mother isn’t surprising — and that’s the problem.

The charges against the young man — who still cannot be named even though he is an adult now — were swept aside in a court decision last month that found repeated prosecutorial misconduct had made it impossible for the accused to get a fair trial.

If you are wondering if this is unique, maybe even unprecedented, it is.

It would be hard to understate the court’s level of concern about the prosecution’s behaviour.

This was the second trial for the accused. The first trial was overturned on appeal in the fall of 2024. Manitoba Justice wasted little time in scheduling a second trial for February 2026.

The case presented at the second trial was, by any objective assessment, weak and vague. Crown attorney Adam Bergen even admitted to the jury that the prosecution had been unable to establish a clear motive. As the trial went on, it became clear there were no witnesses, no murder weapon and no physical evidence pointing to the accused’s guilt.

But Bergen forged ahead with leading questions, innuendo and motives for the murder that were unsupported by physical or even circumstantial evidence.

Court of King’s Bench Justice Ken Champagne intervened before the jury could render its decision.

He said repeated misconduct by the Crown attorney had created “a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.” He said it was impossible for the accused to get a fair trial and then he stayed the charge.

The appeal argues Champagne erred both by finding the accused’s right to a fair trial had been compromised and deciding to stay the charges against him. It does not offer new arguments or evidence.

How should we view the appeal?

This is an application to appeal that relies on the same lack of evidence and tenuous arguments that a lower court deemed to be deliberate misconduct. Given that the Crown is going to the appellate court with the same evidence and strategy, it would not be unfair to conclude that prosecutors will repeat the misconduct that led to the stay of charges.

Although Champagne’s decision to stay charges at this stage of a criminal proceeding is unique, it was not unwarranted. Champagne was particularly concerned about the Crown’s attempt to build a “murder for money” motive.

During cross examination, the Crown questioned the accused about whether he was aware he was the sole beneficiary of his mother’s estate, given that she had no will. However, Champagne also noted the Crown was aware that seven years ago, when the slaying took place and the accused was 16, there wasn’t a “scintilla” of evidence he knew about the estate or absence of a will.

Champagne said that by suggesting this motive to the jury, when the Crown knew the evidence did not support it, “the Crown deliberately manufactured evidence of financial motive which offends the truth-seeking function of a trial and misleads the jury, thus breaching the principles of fundamental justice and the right to a fair trial.”

It should be noted that in most confirmed wrongful convictions, there were issues of law and fairness at trial that were largely dismissed by lower courts and, later, appellate courts. These include the failure to disclose evidence to defence, the use of jailhouse informants and the withholding of evidence about their compensation, and manipulation of evidence based on junk science.

Twenty or 30 years ago, it wouldn’t have been unusual for the trial court to defer to prosecutors, allowing them to suggest a motive with little or no supporting evidence. Or, for lower courts to pass the buck and leave it to appellate courts to determine the veracity of the Crown’s theory.

By intervening when the case was before him, Champagne reasserted the important role of lower courts in preventing miscarriages of justice.

Manitoba Justice frequently tells the public it decides which cases to prosecute based on whether there is a “reasonable likelihood of conviction.” This doesn’t mean that every case that goes to trial is a slam dunk; only that Crown prosecutors have discretion to decide which cases go forward and — we hope — the standard is applied evenly in all cases.

However, given Champagne’s surgical dismemberment of the Crown strategy at the most recent trial, even a layperson is left to ask: does this case still have a reasonable likelihood of conviction and if it does not, then why has an appeal been filed?

It is certain the Manitoba Court of Appeal will hear the Crown’s application, but that may take a year or more to occur. Over that time, the accused will continue to live in fear of the prosecution’s “win at any cost” mentality, and his family will continue to bear the financial burden to battle prosecutors that are, according to a lower court, fighting dirty.

With a year or more delay before an appeal hearing takes place, perhaps Manitoba Justice could use the time to revisit its standard for prosecutions, and reconsider the viability of this case.

If justice is the ultimate goal, that would be time well spent.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca