Defence, Crown present final arguments to jury in woman’s murder trial

In the words of defence lawyer Ian McKay, the story of what happened between his client and the man she killed is one of survival.

But Crown prosecutor Mitchell Miller argued otherwise, saying that Tia Justice Pinacie-Littlechief, 23, had a way out of the situation — if there was even a situation to escape — without resorting to stabbing 27-year-old Justin Crowe.

Approximately 2½ weeks after the second-degree murder trial began for Pinacie-Littlechief at Regina Court of Queen’s Bench, a jury listened to closing arguments from Crown and defence counsel.

“This case is about two things,” McKay told jurors on Wednesday. “It’s about a loss of a life and it’s about journey and survival. It’s about two young girls … making a journey into an area they’ve never been to before, and survival — a young girl’s courage to protect herself and her little cousin from the violence of a man she had just met.”

During the trial, court heard from witnesses present at Crowe’s parents’ house on the Piapot First Nation in the early morning hours of Oct. 27, 2015. All had been drinking; some said they’d blacked out entirely. Other than Pinacie-Littlechief herself, only Crowe’s closest friend, Henry Thorn, professed to having seen the actual stabbing.

McKay invited jurors to find Thorn not credible and asked them to consider how his testimony stands up against Pinacie-Littlechief ’s, arguing physical evidence found at the scene backs up the accused’s story.

While Thorn said the stabbing occurred by the back door with no one blocking Pinacie-Littlechief ’s would-be exit, the accused said she was backed against the cupboards with Crowe having just choked her.

According to Pinacie-Littlechief, Crowe became intoxicated, angry and violent, attacking first another female partygoer and then going after the accused and her 16-yearold cousin while they were outside. Pinacie-Littlechief said she went back into the house to get her phone and was again attacked by Crowe, whom she then ended up stabbing.

But Miller said other evidence — including a statement the accused herself provided to RCMP — backs up Thorn’s version of events. Miller referenced that statement, in which Pinacie-Littlechief backed away from her initial version of events when police suggested it wasn’t workable. While the accused testified she’d changed the story because she felt pressured and wanted to get out of the interview, Miller suggested a more nefarious reason for the inconsistencies.

“It’s because she’s trying to justify, not only perhaps to herself, but to police, about the awful thing that she did that night, that she killed Justin Crowe without justification, without necessity,” he said.

Miller argued that while most of those at the party were heavily intoxicated, it remains possible to sort out what happened. What he argued didn’t happen was the escalation of violence by Crowe suggested by the defence. Rather, Miller recounted testimony from one of the female partygoers who told the court she was the one responsible for injuries to several other females that night. He also referenced testimony from other partygoers that refuted claims Crowe had become violent.

McKay reminded the jury it’s not up to his client to prove she acted in self-defence; it’s the Crown’s job to prove she didn’t.

Miller said the Crown has proven Pinacie-Littlechief is guilty.

The jury returns Thursday morning to receive final instructions from Justice Jeff Kalmakoff. They will then begin deliberations.