Man not guilty of trying to kill pregnant ex
Doubts over intended target lead judge to acquittal in attempted murder case
In a strange twist to a tragic case, a man a judge concluded had shot two people, including his pregnant former girlfriend, has been found not guilty of attempted murder.
After Carleton Stevens shot his 61/2-months-pregnant ex-girlfriend — who can be identified only by the initials J.Y. due to a publication ban — she was taken to hospital and, despite emergency surgery, lost her unborn child. Stevens was the father.
The couple had broken up two weeks before the May 2018 shooting, with Stevens threatening numerous times to kill the woman and her friend Taj Lovett.
Stevens knew Lovett and messages exchanged between them reflected the fact that they once had a close relationship, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Jennifer Duncan said in her verdict Wednesday. That was damaged, in the accused’s mind, Duncan added, when Lovett provided shelter for J.Y. in the loft of the East Van Graphics print shop where he worked.
Stevens, who pleaded not guilty to attempting to murder J.Y., was angry at both Lovett and J.Y. He vacillated between denying he was the father of J.Y.’s baby and wanting his family back, the judge said.
The accused also believed that Lovett was having sex with J.Y., which Lovett denied, and not long before the shooting J.Y. texted Stevens and expressed anger at the way he had treated her and asked that he return some of her ID documents in his possession, Duncan said.
The Crown’s theory was that in the early morning of May 18, 2018, Stevens, armed with a firearm and wearing gloves, entered the shop where J.Y. was staying with Lovett and shot her, carrying out his earlier threats to kill her.
J.Y. testified that she woke up from a deep sleep to discover Stevens in the loft and carrying a gun. She said she got up to leave and then was shot and that the shooting was followed by a struggle between Stevens and Lovett.
But other witnesses testified the struggle preceded the shooting, which the judge found was critical in her analysis of the evidence.
Duncan concluded that Stevens and another man, who has been identified only as Person X, entered the print shop and went up to the loft. Stevens was wearing gloves, not because his hands were cold in the middle of May, but because he was preparing to enter the building and confront Lovett or J.Y. or both, the judge said.
The judge found that there was a struggle of some sort between Lovett and Stevens, who fired his weapon at, or in the direction of, Lovett. The bullet went through his right arm and hit J.Y., who was either on the bed or getting up to leave the loft.
“In a case like this, where a pregnant woman was shot and lost her unborn child, feelings of revulsion
I cannot be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to shoot her. My doubt arises from the fact that one shell casing was found in the loft.
or sympathy must not overwhelm the necessary legal analysis,” the judge said.
“While there was evidence the accused was angry at J.Y. and made threats against her in the weeks leading up to the shooting, I cannot be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to shoot her. My doubt arises from the fact that one shell casing was found in the loft, indicating that one shot was fired.”
The accused threatened Lovett as well as J.Y., and it’s a reasonable scenario that Lovett, not J.Y., was the intended target, the judge said.
While there was no doubt Stevens, who was 37 at the time of the shooting, uttered threats and used a firearm in a way that contravenes many sections of the Criminal Code, the single count before the court required proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he shot J.Y. with intent to kill, Duncan.
No charges were laid in connection with the shooting of Lovett, as he did not provide a statement to police. He did not testify at trial.
Stevens has an outstanding matter — breaching a firearms possession ban that was imposed after a prior criminal conviction — but that charge was laid on a separate indictment and will be dealt with at a later date.
Outside court, defence lawyer Chandra Corriveau noted that the circumstances of the case were “incredibly tragic” for everyone involved and the court rightly concluded that the gun discharged during the course of a struggle.
“That discharge resulted in the complainant losing her baby, which was notably also the accused’s baby and as a result of those circumstances and finding of fact, (the judge) is not able to conclude that he had the requisite intent for attempted murder,” Corriveau said.