Crown, defence make final Arguments in murder trial

Jurors hear closing arguments in case where man was killed in a house fire

Crown prosecutor Adam Breker urged a Regina Court of Queen’s Bench jury to rely on common sense to see their way to verdicts of first-degree murder in the case against two people accused of killing Ryan Daniel Sugar.

But defence lawyers for Colinda Lee Hotomani, 36, and Gregory James Wolfe, 26 — Greg Wilson and Mervyn Shaw respectively — suggested common sense might lead the jury in an entirely different direction from the one laid out by the Crown.

Lawyers provided jurors with closing arguments on the case Monday, approximately three weeks after the trial began.

Jurors heard evidence about a house fire from Oct. 4-5, 2016, that led to Sugar’s death. The body of the 31-year-old was found on Oct. 11, 2016, in the back bedroom of 1555 Mctavish St.

Hotomani, Wolfe and Jessica Pangman were later charged with murder.

Pangman was among witnesses at the trial, and Breker suggested her evidence — as well as that of other Crown witnesses — was credible and corroborated by other testimony and physical evidence from the scene.

Pangman told the court Sugar was assaulted by Hotomani and Wolfe, and then backed into the bathroom while the pair set fire to a pillow outside the bathroom door. She said Wolfe used a large TV as a barricade, and that the three fled while Sugar called for help.

“They blocked a man into a smoke-filled house and left him to die,” Breker told jurors, calling the homicide a “cold, calculated and brutal act.”

Sugar died from smoke inhalation, court heard.

Breker argued the Crown’s case is strengthened by other witnesses, including people who testified Hotomani and Wolfe admitted to their roles.

But Wilson and Shaw argued the evidence should lead the jury to other verdicts: manslaughter in Wolfe’s case and not guilty in Hotomani’s.

Shaw told jurors he wasn’t there to “pull rabbits out of hats,” stating the evidence indeed shows Wolfe played a role in the homicide. But Shaw argued the evidence doesn’t prove his client intended Sugar’s death.

He urged jurors to disbelieve evidence of key Crown witnesses, calling one a “liar,” and suggesting another — Pangman — has a lot to gain by testifying as she did, given her own outstanding charge.

Shaw suggested his client was too intoxicated to form the intent for murder — an argument with which Wilson agreed when it came to Hotomani.

But there was also finger-pointing between the two defence lawyers, each suggesting the other’s client was the more involved.

In Wilson’s case, he claimed evidence suggests the possibility of a second fire — one that would then have been started by Wolfe acting alone. Referring to testimony Wolfe remained in the house briefly after Hotomani and Pangman left, Wilson said there was opportunity for Wolfe to set a stronger fire beyond the one in which Hotomani was said to have aided.

“Colinda Hotomani is no saint…,” he said. “She did some bad things that night. She did not kill Ryan Sugar.”

Wilson additionally fell back on the defence of provocation, arguing the incident ensued as the result of an accusation Sugar had sexually assaulted the two women.

Breker refuted defence claims, arguing there is no evidence of a second fire, and that the actions of the two accused before, during and after the incident suggest they were not so drunk as to render them incapable of making decisions. Breker further argued the provocation defence does not apply, given the amount of time that passed between the sex-assault accusations and the lighting of the fatal fire.

Justice Janet Mcmurtry began charging the jury on Monday afternoon and will finish her instructions Tuesday. The jury will then start deliberating the case.