Deliberations begin in Sugar murder trial
Victim died of smoke inhalation in deliberately set fire, court was told
The case against Colinda Lee Hotomani and Gregory James Wolfe, accused in the fire-related death of 31-year-old Ryan Daniel Sugar, is now in a jury’s hands.
Hotomani, 36, and Wolfe, 26, are accused in the Oct. 4-5, 2016, homicide, alleged to have occurred in a deliberately set house fire at 1555 Mctavish St. Court heard Sugar died of carbon-monoxide poisoning from smoke inhalation.
Regina Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Janet Mcmurtry completed her instructions to the jury on Tuesday, following which the 14-person jury was whittled down to the 12 needed for deliberations.
The jury began deliberating shortly before 2 p.m. Tuesday.
During her charge to the jury, Mcmurtry detailed rules of law and the duties of jurors; what the Crown must prove in order for guilty verdicts to be reached; and what verdicts are open to the jury, among other instructions.
In this case, the Crown is seeking first-degree murder convictions against each of the accused. Mervyn Shaw, defence lawyer for Wolfe, asked the jury to find his client guilty of manslaughter rather than murder, while Hotomani’s lawyer, Greg Wilson, asked the jury to return a not-guilty verdict for his client.
Mcmurtry told jurors they could find each of the accused guilty of first-degree murder, second-degree murder or manslaughter, or not guilty of any offence.
In order to find Wolfe and Hotomani guilty of first-degree murder, the judge said, the Crown needs to have proven a variety of elements, including that each unlawfully confined Sugar during the same series of events that led to his death, that they actively participated in the killing — whether directly or as an aider or abettor — and that defences like intoxication or provocation do not apply.
Mcmurtry explained a person can be found guilty either as a “principal” participant in an offence, or as a party to an offence. She said to arrive at guilty verdicts, jurors must find the two were involved in committing an arson, either as a principal or as an aider or abettor, that their conduct contributed significantly to Sugar’s death, and that they had the intent to kill Sugar or cause bodily harm they knew could cause his death.
Mcmurtry pointed to a number of key Crown witnesses considered, by definition, “unsavoury” due to their criminal backgrounds. Because of that, she advised jurors to ensure they search for corroboration when looking to determine what, if any, weight to place on those individuals’ testimony.
The jury had not yet reached a verdict by press time.