Jury deliberating verdict in Stanley murder trial
Panel told to weigh evidence about events leading to Boushie’s death
A jury’s decision on whether to find Gerald Stanley guilty of murder or manslaughter in the shooting death of Colten Boushie will likely come down to what they think about the farmer’s account of what happened on his property on Aug. 9, 2016.
Lawyers for the Crown and defence delivered their closing arguments in Stanley’s second-degree murder trial Thursday at Battleford Court of Queen’s Bench.
Scott Spencer, Stanley ’s defence lawyer, argued that Boushie’s death was a “freak accident” that occurred when Stanley responded in a “measured” way to a highly charged and dangerous situation that involved — in Stanley’s mind — strangers driving onto his farm, trying to steal his quad, crashing into his wife’s vehicle and attempting to run down his son.
“Things happen when you create this type of home invasion, fearfilled, high-energy roller coaster ride. When you create that, you create an opportunity for there to be an accident and a tragedy. And that’s what happened here,” Spencer told the jury.
“In this circumstance, the question is: If you were in Gerry’s boots, would you reasonably be expected to do anything significantly different?”
The Crown’s primary argument is that Stanley fired two warning shots in the air and then walked up to the SUV Boushie was in and intentionally shot Boushie in the head. If the jury members unanimously believe that version of events beyond a reasonable doubt, they can convict Stanley of seconddegree murder.
The Crown has also presented an alternate theory if the jury is not convinced it was second-degree murder: That Stanley caused Boushie’s death because of his careless use of a firearm.
If the jury believes that beyond a reasonable doubt, they can convict Stanley of manslaughter.
Over the last two weeks, court heard Boushie was one of five people in a grey SUV that drove onto Stanley’s farm north of Biggar on Aug. 9, 2016.
At least one person in the SUV attempted to start a quad on Stanley ’s property. Stanley and his son, Sheldon Stanley, confronted the SUV and Sheldon hit the windshield with a hammer.
The SUV then drove away and smashed into one of Stanley’s parked vehicles. Two men from the SUV got out and Sheldon Stanley ran into the house. Gerald Stanley said he retrieved a Tokarev semiautomatic pistol from his shed and fired two warning shots in the air. A third shot fatally struck Boushie in the back of the head while Boushie sat in the driver’s seat of the SUV.
Stanley testified in court that after firing two warning shots, he realized he couldn’t see his wife and was filled with a feeling of “pure terror” that she might be under the SUV.
He said he ran toward it, reached into the driver’s window to turn the vehicle off and the gun — which he believed was empty — “just went off.”
The barrel of a .22-calibre rifle was found by Boushie’s body and DNA evidence suggests the firearm was with him in the driver’s seat at the time he died. Stanley told the jury he saw “something metal” pointed at him when he reached across Boushie to turn off the SUV, but that he hadn’t realized it might be a gun.
In his closing statements, Spencer said it would have been “so easy” for Stanley to have claimed Boushie pointed a rifle at him.
“It would have been way better to testify to self-defence than what actually happened, but he couldn’t,” Spencer told the jury. “He told you what happened.”
Crown prosecutor Bill Burge told the jury they “can’t believe what Gerald Stanley said.”
Burge took issue with how Stanley described the state of the Tokarev pistol after he fired his second warning shot.
Stanley told the jury he believed he had loaded two bullets in his gun. After he fired the second warning shot, he pulled the trigger several times to make sure the gun was clear, then brought the pistol down and popped the clip out, he testified. Stanley said the slide of the gun was back and the barrel was extended out, suggesting to him that the gun was empty.
If that were truly the case, Stanley’s gun could not have gone off, Burge argued.
“I’m suggesting, ladies and gentlemen, that he told a bit of a story here and he did not, in my submission, tell the truth.”
A cartridge case found in the SUV had an unusual bulge. One possible explanation suggested by firearms experts during the trial was that Stanley’s gun had a hang fire and that, during a delay between when the trigger was pulled and when the cartridge detonated, something caused the cartridge to shift in the chamber of the gun.
Experts said hang fires are extremely rare and the only documented ones have lasted less than a second. They said the possibility of a hang fire may be increased when old and poorly stored ammunition is used.
Stanley told the jury the ammunition he used in his Tokarev was more than 60 years old and had been kept in an unheated shed. He said he had a hang fire on Aug. 9, 2016.
Spencer told the jury no one will ever know what caused the cartridge casing to bulge, but that a hang fire is the only reasonable explanation.
“It’s all unlikely, but it’s possible. That’s exactly what happened,” Spencer said.
Burge told the jury that if they are not convinced Stanley had an intention to kill Boushie, they must consider him guilty of manslaughter.
Burge argued that a verdict of manslaughter would be appropriate because Stanley acted unlawfully by carelessly using a firearm. He said this was evident because Stanley did not know how many bullets he loaded into his gun, did not know how many times he pulled the trigger and did not know how to properly disarm his gun.
Burge also questioned Stanley’s claim that Stanley was worried for his wife’s well-being. He said Sheldon’s testimony did not support the story that Gerald Stanley sprinted to the vehicle.
In his instructions to the jury, Chief Justice Martel Popescul said Stanley was within his right to get his gun and fire warning shots into the air, but that the jury must decide whether the actions he took after that continued to be lawful.
If jurors decide Stanley is not guilty of second-degree murder and that his actions were not lawful and went beyond what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances, they can convict him of manslaughter.
If they decide Stanley is not guilty of second-degree murder and that his actions were reasonable, he will be acquitted.
After more than four hours of deliberation, the jury requested to rewatch testimony from both Gerald and Sheldon Stanley. They asked to hear Sheldon’s testimony from when he came out of the house and heard the third gunshot and Gerald’s testimony starting from the point in which he fired the first shot.
After discussion with the Crown and defence, Popescul decided the jury should re-listen to the entirety of both testimonies rather than portions. He gave the jury the option to listen to Sheldon’s testimony, which was more than an hour long, Thursday night or to start again in the morning. The jury opted to stop for the night.
The trial is scheduled to restart Friday morning at 9 a.m.