Crown seeks new trial in Styres case
On Monday, the Court of Appeal will consider the ruling in controversial killing of Indigenous man by a white homeowner
A jury decided that when Peter Khill killed Jonathan Styres with two blasts of a shotgun, he did so in self-defence.
In the emotional moments after that controversial verdict on June 27, 2018, Khill — a jet engine mechanic — walked out of a Hamilton courtroom to freedom.
Now his liberty may once again be on the line as the Crown appeals the acquittal and asks for a new second-degree murder trial.
The case goes before the Court of Appeal for Ontario Monday with the Crown arguing the original trial jury should never have been allowed to consider the fact Khill was a former military reservist, should not have heard the testimony of a psychologist who testified about the lasting impact of military training and should have been instructed by the judge to consider
whether Khill’s own actions contributed to the situation that led to Styres’ homicide.
Styres was the father of two young children. The two-week murder trial was a watershed moment for the Hamilton community and beyond.
It brought into question the extent of a homeowner’s right to protect himself, and it raised the issue of whether a just verdict could be obtained when a white man (Khill) kills an Indigenous man (Styres).
While the first point was at the legal crux of the case, the second point was raised just once at the trial in a brief, although significant moment.
During jury selection, candidates were screened for potential racism and were asked: “Would your ability to judge the evidence in this case without bias, prejudice or partiality, be affected by the fact that the deceased victim is an Indigenous
person and the person charged with this crime is a white person?”
The question was posed because of concerns stemming from a similar case in Saskatchewan where a white farmer was acquitted of second-degree murder in the death of an Indigenous man.
Many critics — including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau — suggested the all-white jury in that case got the verdict wrong.
It is unknown if any of the Khill jurors were Indigenous.
Race did not play a role in the shooting itself, the trial heard.
Khill, 26 at the time of the homicide, shot Styres, 29, twice on Feb. 4, 2016, in the pre-dawn hours at his rural Binbrook home.
Khill and his spouse (expecting their first child during the trial) were asleep when there was a noise outside. A light was on in Khill’s truck in the driveway and a figure was seen rummaging inside.
Khill grabbed a shotgun from his bedroom closet, went outside and confronted the apparent thief.
Khill testified that Styres quickly brought his hands up to “gun height” causing Khill to believe he was armed.
Khill admitted to shooting and killing Styres — who was unarmed — because he thought his own life was threatened.
It took jurors six hours to reach their verdict.
The jury asked just one question during its deliberations. It related to the definition of “a reasonable person” and their actions in the context of self-defence.
Afterward, defence lawyer Jeff Manishen said that indicated to him the jury was properly assessing Khill’s military training.
That very issue is now one of the Crown’s strongest grounds for appeal.
Susan Reid, of the Crown Law Office, has argued in her factum that trial judge Justice Stephen Glithero made fatal errors in his charge to the jury about how they should consider self-defence:
Glithero did not tell the jury it must consider whether Khill did anything to create the situation that led to Styres’ death, including bringing a loaded gun outside; he erred by directing the jury to consider Khill’s military training in assessing if his actions were reasonable; Glithero mistakenly instructed jurors that if they believed Khill’s testimony that he shot in self-defence then they must find him not guilty.
Reid also argues Glithero should not have allowed a defence psychologist to give opinion evidence on Khill’s military training because he was not properly qualified as an expert.
In their response factum, Toronto lawyers Michael Lacy and Joseph Wilkinson lay out the reasons why those instructions and rulings are appropriate and argue that in each case the assistant Crown attorneys at the trial did not object.
Also, they argue, there is nothing to indicate a change to those four points would change the verdict.