evidence

Jury Finds Lovers Guilty of First-Degree Murder

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

After five days of deliberations, a Toronto jury have found Michael Ivezic (“Ivezic”) and Demitry Papasotiriou-Lanteigne (“Papasotiriou-Lanteigne”) guilty of first-degree murder in the death of Allan Lanteigne (“Lanteigne”).

The Crown prosecutor alleged that Ivezic and Papasotiriou-Lanteigne conspired to kill the latter’s spouse in the foyer of his Ossington Avenue home on March 2, 2011. It was alleged that the two accused were having an affair and plotted the crime to access the victim’s $2 million life insurance policy and depart for Greece to start a life together.

The two men will return to court on June 7, 2018 when victim impact statements will be read from Lanteigne’s family. They will also receive their sentence at that time. A first-degree murder conviction carries with it a mandatory sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Lanteigne was found dead in his home on March 3, 2011. There were no signs of forced entry and police did not find the murder weapon. An autopsy revealed that Lanteigne was beaten to death.

Lanteigne and Papsotiriou-Lanteigne were married on November 27, 2004. Their relationship “fizzled out” in 2008, although they continued to live together. At some point in 2009, Ivezic and Papasotiriou-Lanteigne began having an affair. Ivezic was even given a key to the house by Papasotiriou-Lanteigne.

By the spring of 2010, Papasotiriou-Lanteigne moved to Greece where his father lived. He continued to pay for airline tickets for Ivezic to visit him. These expenses were paid for by Lanteigne who was working two jobs at the time in Toronto. There were various emails read to the jury written by Lanteigne that indicated that he was tired of giving Papasotiriou-Lanteigne money. Lanteigne threatened to cut off his cheating spouse.

Papasotiriou-Lanteigne was arrested on a visit to Toronto in November, 2012, when he returned to Canada for court proceedings related to his claim for Lanteigne’s life insurance payout.

Ivezic was arrested by authorities in Greece and extradicted to Canada in June, 2013. Ivezic had left his wife and children and was living in Greece with Papsotiriou-Lanteigne as of May 2011.

Both men denied any involvement in the death of Lanteigne.

Crown prosecutors alleged that Papasotirious-Lanteigne “lured” Lanteigne to their home on the evening of his death. An email dated March 2, 2011 was read to the jury from Papasotiriou-Lanteigne requesting that Lanteigne call him in Greece as soon as he got home.

The key piece of evidence was DNA found under the fingernails of the deceased’s right hand belonging to Ivezic. The prosecution argued that this evidence was left as the victim fought for his life. Ivezic argued that his DNA was planted or ended up there as part of an “innocent transfer”. Ivezic suggested that maybe his DNA was transferred to Lanteigne when he and the victim had touched the same surface or when they shared lunch together days before the murder. However, there was no evidence at trial to suggest that Ivezic was friends with the deceased or that they had lunch together.

This case has lasted for many years with both accused challenging every aspect of the case, including allegations that the Crown prosecutors hid disclosure, tampered with police records and evidence, lied to the defence and the court and colluded with police. Furthermore, the accused had more than a dozen defence lawyers and court-appointed lawyers appear on their behalf since they were charged. There was even a period of time during the trial that Ivezic represented himself before the jury.

Following the victim’s death, Papasotiriou filed claims against two firms that insured his spouse as he was seeking $2 million. Papasotiriou is named as the sole beneficiary on the victim’s life insurance policy.

RARE REINSTATEMENT OF FIRST-DEGREE MURDER CHARGE

In September, 2014 following a preliminary hearing, an Ontario Court judge discharged Papasotiriou-Lanteigne, a Toronto lawyer, on the basis that there was not enough evidence to convict him.

A preliminary hearing is held in cases involving serious crimes where the prosecution must show a judge that there is a bare minimum of evidence to justify a full trial. This is often a chance for an accused’s lawyer to see what case the prosecution has against their client.

In October, 2014, the Ministry of the Attorney General signed a preferred indictment that reinstated the first-degree murder charge against Papsotiriou-Lanteigne.

This is a unique occurrence permitted by section 577 of the Criminal Code. The purpose of this section was described by Southin J.A. of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in the case of R. v. Charlie as follows:

Such a power is arecognition of the ultimate constitutional responsibility of Attorneys General to ensure that those who ought to be brought to trial are brought to trial.

We will continue to follow this case and report in this blog on any developments as they occur.

In the meantime, if you have been charged with a criminal offence or have questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the experienced criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. We have a 24-hour phone service for your convenience. We are not afraid to fight for your rights and protect your interests.

Judge Criticizes Police Officer’s “False Testimony” in Drug Case

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Drug charges against three men have been dropped after an Ontario judge found that a Toronto police officer had been “deliberately misleading” in both his testimony and in his notes, as he attempted to “strengthen the case” against one of the men.

What Happened?

In 2014, the three men in question, Jason Jaggernauth, Jordan Davis, and Jimal Nembrand-Walker were charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of the proceeds of crime, after police found them in a Scarborough apartment that contained multiple types of drugs and drug-related paraphernalia.

At the time of the arrest, police officers found several grams of crack on Davis and crack, powdered cocaine, and several other drugs in Nembrand-Walker’s pockets. No drugs were found on Jaggernauth.

Conflicting Testimony

In a pretrial hearing, the officer, Constable Bradley Trenouth, testified that he saw a large piece of crack fall from Jaggernauth when officers had him stand up from his chair. This testimony was backed up by the notes that the officer said he took at the time of the arrest. During the preliminary hearing, the officer also stated that he had picked up the piece of crack off the floor after forensic officers had taken photos of the scene. However, the photos taken do not include images of that specific piece of crack. When questioned about why the photos taken did not depict the crack, the officer claimed that it might be because the piece of crack had been stepped on or moved before the photos were taken.

In addition, at trial several months later, the officer told the court that he did not see the crack fall from Jaggernauth. Instead, he testified that he had found the piece of crack on the floor near Jaggernauth and “assumed” it had fallen from him.  At this time, the officer’s story about the photos of the crack also changed, and he told the court that there were no photos of the crack because he had already picked it up and put it in his pocket before the photos were taken.

The Decision

In her decision, Justice Katherine Corrick wrote that the officer had not found the crack near Jaggernauth, but rather, had “falsely attributed” the drugs to Jaggernauth. The charges against Jaggernauth were stayed. Because of the officer’s actions, Justice Corrick excluded the evidence gathered by him and other officers. As a result, Jaggernauth’s co-accused’s were also found not guilty.

Justice Corrick wrote, in her decision:

The false attribution of evidence to an accused’s possession, and false testimony by a police officer constitute precisely the type of state misconduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial process.

Justice Corrick further noted that the officer was “deliberately misleading” in both preparing his notes, and in his testimony at the preliminary hearing. She found it “unlikely” that an officer with eight years of police experience would pick up unwrapped drugs and put them in his pocket at a crime scene. Furthermore, if the officer had merely been mistaken during his pretrial testimony, he should have informed prosecutors before the case went to trial.

Justice Corrick criticized the officer’s actions stating:

It is difficult to imagine how public confidence can be maintained in the rule of law when police officers present false evidence against accused person… [o]ur justice system cannot function unless courts can rely on the willingness of witnesses to . . . tell the truth.

Potential Discipline for the Officer

Jaggernauth’s lawyer has recommended that an investigation be immediately opened into the officer’s conduct during the matter:

The bottom line is . . . an officer falsely attributed an exhibit to my client that never was on my client.

A Toronto police spokesperson said that she cannot confirm whether the officer will face any discipline. All police disciplinary matters are kept confidential until the officer in question has appeared before a police services tribunal.

If you have questions about your legal rights, whether during an investigation, arrest, or otherwise contact the criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP in Oshawa. Our firm and its predecessors have been protecting clients since 1992 and have significant experience with drug offences. Whatever the nature of your offence, we can help. Call us at 905-404-1947 or contact us online for a free consultation.

The Right to Silence: Part 2

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

In a previous blog post, we wrote about the right to silence enshrined for all Canadians in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Another important component to the right to silence is the right against self-incrimination. The Charter also protects witnesses against self-incrimination. Under section 13, witnesses may not have any incriminating evidence they give as testimony used against them in separate proceedings. It is important to be aware that although it serves a similar purpose, the protection in section 13 is different from the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows a person to refuse to testify.

Similarly, under section 11 of the Charter, an accused person cannot be forced to testify at his or her own trial. However, when an accused person freely chooses to take the witness box and testify, there is no further right to silence. There is likewise no general restriction on which types of questions are permissible. An accused person who voluntarily testifies is not compelled to testify and is therefore not protected by section 13. However, an accused is still protected by section 13 in the sense that any incriminating evidence they gave in a prior proceeding cannot be used against them in the criminal trial. Finally, prior inconsistent testimony can be used in a criminal trial to impeach the credibility of an accused person.

A special right to silence also used to exist for spouses in Canada. It was commonly referred to as the rule of spousal incompetency or spousal immunity and it meant that a person could not be compelled to testify against his or her legally married spouse. There were a few exceptions, for example in case of sex offences or where the victims were children. However, in 2015, the Harper government enacted legislation entitled the Victims Bill of Rights Act. The Act amended the Canada Evidence Act to remove the spousal immunity protection – a common-law tradition that goes back hundreds of years.

If you have questions about your right to silence and would like to speak to an experienced criminal defence lawyer, please contact Affleck & Barrison online or at 905-404-1947.

The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

In trials involving eyewitness testimony, the frailty of memory often becomes a key part of the defence strategy, . Eyewitness accounts can make a deep impression on a jury, especially when the witness is expresses a high level of certainty. However, although a confident eyewitness can make or break a trial, experience shows that mistaken identifications have and do occur and courts have long recognized this.

Many people believe that human memory works like a video recording of our experience, but according to experts, memories are actually quite fragile and susceptible to contamination. As the recent trial of Jian Ghomeshi shows, memories can change over time and be impacted by stress and trauma. The science behind why people remember certain details and not others, and why our memories and the way we recount them can change over time have been closely studied and arise frequently in court.

Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on the propensity for eyewitnesses to remember events and details that did not occur. It is not uncommon for victims to genuinely and confidently identify their attackers only to be proven wrong by DNA evidence years later, as was the case in the Netflix documentary Making a Murderer.

 But this does not mean that eyewitness identification is always unreliable. Sometimes eyewitness identification can be used to exonerate a person who is wrongfully accused of a crime. However, courts are now aware of the ability of third parties to introduce false memories to witnesses. There is only one chance to test the memory of an eyewitness as their memories can become contaminated. That is why it is so important that the testing conditions are adequate. Proper interview techniques and procedures by police and prosecutors are essential to ensure the reliability of identification evidence.

If you would like to speak to an experienced criminal defence lawyer, please contact Affleck & Barrison online or at 905-404-1947.

Wiretap Authorizations Require Full & Frank Disclosure

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

In R v Hall, 2016 ONCA 13, the Court of Appeal found that the officer who obtained an authorization to intercept conversations between the defendant and an informant had a profound misunderstanding of the duty of full and frank disclosure.

Jeremy Hall was arrested on a gun-related charges. While incarcerated, he asked his cellmate and childhood acquaintance, Dwayne Utman, to help him make sure the witnesses would not show up for trial, indicating that both should be killed. He offered Mr. Utman $5000. Mr. Utman testified that he went to the police with this information and reported the substance of his conversations with Mr. Hall to the police. After Mr. Utman’s release from custody, he continued to report his conversations with Mr. Hall to police. The Crown’s case was heavily dependent on Mr. Utman’s evidence. Mr. Utman stood to gain financially from helping the police, and he had drug and mental health issues, in addition to being a habitual liar and a career criminal. The trial judge noted that Mr. Utman’s evidence “must be approached with extreme caution.” The trial judge was not prepared to convict Mr. Hall of the charges of counseling murder based on Mr. Utman’s testimony.

At trial, a major issue concerned the admissibility of the intercepted conversations between Mr. Hall and Mr. Utman, both in the jail cell they shared and at other locations. The trial judge found that Detective Sergeant Johnstone, the officer who obtained the authorizations to intercept the conversations, failed to make a full and frank disclosure of the facts material to making a proper assessment of Utman’s credibility. The trial judge found that the officer’s conduct “materially distorted the picture that was placed before the issuing Justice.” As a result, the trial judge set aside the authorizations. Absent the authorizations, the interceptions were unlawful and infringed upon Hall’s rights under section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s ruling that the evidence from the interceptions was unlawful and should be excluded. The appeal was dismissed.

This article is a brief overview of a complex case and is not intended to be construed as comprehensive legal advice. To learn more about this case or any other criminal defence matter, please contact the lawyers at Affleck & Barrison online or at 905-404-1947.

To read the full decision, click here.