Guilty of robbery, but not guilty of manslaughter
Clarence Napope’s acquittal in stabbing follows three days of jury deliberation
A single — but loud — clap rang out in a Saskatoon Queen’s Bench courtroom after a jury found Keith Clarence Napope guilty of robbery, but not guilty of manslaughter, in connection with the stabbing death of 35-year-old Johnathon Keenatch-Lafond.
The audible reaction came from Napope’s younger brother, Devon, who attended all six days of the trial and nearly three days of jury deliberations. “I didn’t want him sitting alone. It makes me really happy for him; it brings a sense of gratitude for the system and for the jury,” Devon said outside court following Thursday ’s verdict. “We knew he was innocent.”
During the deliberation process, jurors asked questions pertaining to aiding and abetting — one of the avenues to a manslaughter conviction. Napope was accused of participating in a drug robbery that led to Keenatch-Lafond’s death, but to convict him of manslaughter, the jury had to decide if there was enough evidence to prove he either directly caused the victim’s death or contributed by helping the person who did.
Jurors do not provide reasons for their decisions, but the verdict itself can paint a picture of what the jury may have believed happened on Nov. 17, 2014 — the night Keenatch-Lafond died from a stab wound to the left side of his chest.
Prosecutor Bryce Pashovitz said in the Crown’s view, the jury found that while Napope did not contribute to Keenatch-Lafond’s death, he was involved in the robbery. The jury heard that a group of masked men broke into the victim’s apartment in the 1400 block of 20th Street West and that at least two men had knives and demanded money and drugs from KeenatchLafond, a known drug dealer.
“The way that we see the evidence, the only way that (Napope) could have been found guilty of that was to have him inside the suite on the night of the incident,” Pashovitz said.
Defence lawyer Brian Pfefferle saw things differently.
“If (Napope) was in the apartment committing a robbery at that time, one would think that they would have convicted him of manslaughter, which they did not.”
Although Napope’s DNA was found at the crime scene, the defence argued the DNA could have been transferred. Pfefferle suggested the victim’s nephew, Tyrone Lafond, attacked his client on the street earlier that night.
Lafond, who witnessed his uncle’s robbery, testified seeing Napope’s face, saying the man had been straddling his uncle with a knife. Jurors spent much of Wednesday’s deliberations relistening to Lafond’s testimony.
Justice Grant Currie will have to decide what facts the jury believed to be true based on the manslaughter acquittal and robbery conviction. Sentencing arguments on the robbery conviction have been adjourned to Oct. 13.
“Essentially the maximum sentence we typically see for robbery is the minimum for the type of manslaughter charge that (Napope) was facing,” Pfefferle told reporters.
He said that although the general sentencing range for manslaughter is between four and 12 years, had Napope been found guilty, the sentence would have been in the “double digits” because it involved a home invasion.
Both Pfefferle and Pashovitz said the trial had the longest jury deliberation of their careers, expressing appreciation over the jury’s dedication.