Teen’s ‘intent for murder’ unproven: Defence

A lawyer for the teen accused of killing Karim Meskine said his client should not be convicted of murder, in part because key Crown witnesses colluded and lied in testimony.

“If someone is prepared to come to court and lie under oath, how can the court be confident with them as a witness?” Matthew Nathanson asked during his closing arguments.

The accused — who cannot be identified under the Youth Criminal Justice Act because he was 16 years old at the time of the offence — started his trial on April 11 by pleading not guilty to second-degree murder, but guilty to manslaughter.

The trial wrapped up in B.C. Supreme Court in New Westminster on Thursday. The judge has reserved judgment until June 30.

The Crown alleged that the accused and three friends planned to find someone trying to sell a smartphone online, lure them to an isolated area near the 22nd Street SkyTrain station and rob them.

They found their target, and a friend of the accused made contact. They arranged to meet on the evening of Dec. 17, 2013.

However, as the teens waited on a path near the station on the day of the meeting, the target became suspicious and didn’t show up. One teen left, but the accused and two of his friends remained.

Meskine happened to walk down the pedestrian path a short time later and was attacked.

The Crown alleged the accused hit Meskine with a bat multiple times. The three then ran from the scene.

A passerby found Meskine and called for help. Meskine was rushed to the hospital and spent the next three days in a coma before he was removed from life support.

About an hour after the assault, the teen called 911, turned himself in to the police and was arrested. The clothing he was wearing at the time had Meskine’s blood on it.

Important Crown witnesses at trial included the three boys who planned the robbery with the accused.

Nathanson said there were major discrepancies in their testimony, even within the evidence given by each individual.

“Had the defence not aggressively challenged these witnesses over and over, your lordship would have been left with a completely misleading impression,” Nathanson said.

He alleged that the witnesses blamed the accused for their own actions to avoid prosecution.

“The Crown, in my respectful submission, has not proven the intent for murder to the high standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Nathanson, asking the judge to acquit his client of murder and convict him of manslaughter.

Crown prosecutor Sharlein Smith conceded that the evidence of one teen should be rejected completely. However, the other two teens admitted to colluding and lying about some things, and when one overlooks those parts of their testimony, Smith said, what remains is enough for a murder conviction.

Outside court, Meskine’s mother Julie, who declined to give her last name, said she felt sick to her stomach listening to the defence describe her son’s injuries and argue that his client did not intend to kill him.

“This is disgusting,” she said.