His Majesty the King - v. -, 2023 SKPC 31

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN YOUTH JUSTICE COURT Citation: 2023 SKPC 31 Date: May 3, 2023 Information: Y90409844 Location: Prince Albert _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: His Majesty the King - and - K.R.

Appearing: Cameron Scott For the Crown Michelle Caron For the Accused Note: Sections 110 and 111 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act contain prohibitions against publication of a name or other information that would identify someone as either a young person being dealt with under the Act , or as a child or young person who is a victim or a witness in relation to an offence alleged under the Act. DECISION F.M. DAUNT , J [ 1 ] On the night of May 28, 2023, Barry Pruden and his daughter, Skye, were riding their bikes in downtown Prince Albert.

They stopped briefly at Georgie’s Beer and Wine Store, then carried on their way. Almost immediately, they were accosted by several individuals. Mr. Pruden was stabbed and beaten. The assailants scattered. Despite extensive efforts to save his life at the scene, Mr. Pruden was pronounced deceased at Victoria Hospital shortly thereafter.

[ 2 ] K.R. now stands charged that, on or about the 28 th day of May 2022, at or near Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, he did unlawfully cause the death of Barry Pruden and did thereby commit second degree murder, contrary to section 235(1) of the Criminal Code . He was also charged with breach of a release order and breach of probation, but the Crown led no evidence on those counts. [ 3 ] Counsel filed an Agreed Statement of Facts outlining the non-controversial evidence.

As well, Court heard from five civilian witnesses and one police officer on the trial proper: Skye Pruden, Carlon Custer, C.S., E.T., R.F., and Constable Daniel Logan. Counsel for the Crown submits their testimony, coupled with the physical evidence presented, proves beyond a reasonable doubt that K.R. murdered Barry Pruden. Counsel for the accused submits the Crown has not met its heavy burden, and the Court should acquit. EVIDENCE [ 4 ] The evidence unfolded as follows. On May 28, 2022, shortly after 10:00 p.m., Skye Pruden and her father were riding their bikes.

They stopped at Georgie’s Beer and Wine Store, on the corner of River Street and 1 st Avenue West, for a few minutes. Skye waited outside, while her father went into the store. While she was waiting, video surveillance shows five or six individuals crossing River Street and gathering on the north side of the street, toward the river.

When Barry Pruden exited the store, the two continued riding their bikes on the south sidewalk of River Street, heading toward the Provincial Court House. [ 5 ] Almost immediately, video from Georgie’s shows three individuals jog one at a time across the street from the riverside towards the Prudens. According to Skye, there was some brief conversation, then Barry got off his bike and brandished a gardening tool at the group. Skye walked both bikes back to Georgie’s to get help. Video from the court house shows at least four individuals in an altercation with Mr. Pruden. The group stalked Mr.

Pruden up and down River Street as he walked backwards brandishing his weapon. Although one individual hung back for part of the altercation, at least three actively participated in the attack. [ 6 ] According to the witness, E.T., K.R. was stabbed in the hand with the gardening tool and became angry. In retaliation, he stabbed Mr. Pruden in the head, chest, and arm. Photos taken of K.R. on his arrest, four days later, show recent wounds to his hand. Medical evidence shows Mr. Pruden suffered stab wounds from a single-bladed instrument to his head below the ear and the top of his shoulder.

He also sustained two stab wounds to the chest through four layers of clothing, both of which pierced a lung. One pierced his heart. [ 7 ] On the night in question, Carlon Custer drove by the scene and saw four young people wearing black and white clothes surrounding an older man. He heard some yelling. He turned around to drive by again, to see if the man was all right. He saw the man on his knees holding his stomach while others watched. Consistent with the video evidence, he says he saw the assailants run across the street toward the riverbank path. He called the police.

Video evidence also shows the group running northwest across River Street toward the Rotary Trail. [ 8 ] At 10:16 p.m. police received multiple 911 calls and attended immediately. Constable Husky found Mr. Pruden lying on his knees face down in a pool of his own blood, still wearing his backpack. Parkland Ambulance arrived at approximately 10:26 p.m. Mr. Pruden was transported to Victoria Hospital and pronounced deceased at 10:56 p.m. [ 9 ] That night, K.R. was at C.S.’s residence with C.S.’s adopted son, M.M., and some other youths. C.S. observed them trying to bandage a wound on K.R.’s hand.

C.S. gave K.R. a ride to the West Flat, where he dropped him off. Later, Mr. Pruden’s DNA was found on M.M.’s shoes, as well as on K.R.’s shoes. [ 10 ] On May 30, 2022, E.T. approached police and gave a warned statement about the homicide. In parts of that statement, he says K.R. told Mr. Pruden to get off his bike. Mr. Pruden replied, “Fuck that” and started swinging a pole or a hose at K.R. The object hit K.R. in the hand. K.R. looked at his hand and saw it bleeding. K.R. got angry and stabbed Mr. Pruden multiple times, in the head and the arm and the chest. Mr.

Pruden dropped to the ground, and the group (but not E.T.) “kicked his ass.” E.T. described the knife as black-handled, with a 6 ½ or 7-inch blade. He says K.R. took off with the guy’s bike and everyone “scattered like cockroaches.” [ 11 ] R.F. says that, in the days following the killing, he overheard a conversation with K.R. in which K.R. admitted to stabbing Barry Pruden, but only in the leg. K.R. said the group was trying to take Mr. Pruden’s bike and K.R. was stabbed in the hand. R.F. did not make his statement to police until almost seven months after the events described.

[12] The night of the homicide, police quickly secured the scene and gathered samples for forensic analysis. Constable Gahramaintained continuity of the area. The next morning, Constable Gahra directed the ident officer to what appeared to be droplets of bloodon the Rotary Trail, immediately to the north of the roadway. These droplets were photographed, samples taken and tested for DNA. The DNA matched K.R. [13] An autopsy revealed Mr. Pruden sustained a stab wound to his left ear and cheek to a depth of 8 cm (just over 3 inches), aswell as a wound to his left shoulder to a depth of 12.6 cm (just under 5 inches).

A stab wound to his right chest penetrated the middlelobe of his right lung. A stab wound to his left chest penetrated the anterior wall of the left ventricle of the heart. Because both woundsentered the thoracic cavity, their depth could not be specified. The wounds were caused by a single-bladed weapon. These injuries, andthe resulting blood loss, caused the death of Barry Pruden. Mr. Pruden also sustained two wounds to his right thigh from a square-shaped instrument. Both wounds penetrated his thigh muscle, both to a depth of 2.5 cm.

Also evident in the autopsy were abrasions onhis head and face, on his torso, and on his arms and legs. [14] On May 29, police seized surveillance video from Georgie’s Cold Beer and Wine Store. Video was also provided from theRiver Street camera located at the back of the Provincial Court House. There is a gap of about half a block between the areas covered bythese two cameras. The relevant events occur in the margins of the frame. Georgie’s video was quite clear. The court house video is oflower quality, containing flares and backlighting from streetlights and vehicle headlights.

Nevertheless, Barry Pruden is readilyidentifiable; he was wearing a rather large backpack throughout the altercation. The videos show Mr. Pruden was clearly the target of anattack, and any aggression on his part, plainly

an act of self-defence. [15] On May 31, 2022, police executed a search warrant at K.R.’s home. They photographed a pair of runners outside a basementwindow of the residence, although they did not immediately seize them. That evening, police received a call from K.R.’s mother, whosaid she had located K.R.’s shoes. Police re-attended on June 1, 2022, and seized the shoes. The ident officer noticed what he believedto be bloodstains on both shoes. Samples taken from the “top of foot, base of tongue” and from “outside back midsole, instep” of the leftshoe matched the deceased, Barry Pruden.

A sample from “outside upper back heel area” was “of mixed origin consistent with havingoriginated from two individuals.” The major contributor to that sample also matched the deceased, Barry Pruden. As noted earlier, M.M.also had Mr. Pruden’s blood on his shoes. [16] On June 1, 2022, at about 7:00 p.m., K.R. attended with his mother to Prince Albert City Police to turn himself in.

Photographs taken after his arrest show a bruise on the inside of his right index finger, a cut on his left palm, a wound on his left thumb,a wound on the outside of his left hand below the wrist, as well as cuts on his left arm above the wrist. ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE AND BURDEN OF PROOF [17] The Crown must prove each element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown must prove that the accused,K.R., caused the death of Barry Pruden, with the intent to kill him, or with the intent to cause bodily harm he knew was likely to causedeath, and was reckless as to whether death ensued.

The accused may be found guilty if he committed the act himself, if he aided orabetted another to commit it, or if the group of youths formed an intention in common to commit an offence, and the accused knew thedeath of Mr. Pruden was a likely consequence. [18] The concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is summarized in R v Lifchus, (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 320 atpara 36. The high standard of proof is “inextricably intertwined” with the presumption of innocence. The burden of proof rests on theprosecution throughout the trial and never shifts to the accused.

A reasonable doubt is not a doubt based on sympathy or prejudice, buton reason and common sense, logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence. The Crown need not prove their case to anabsolute certainty. The standard is not proof beyond any doubt, nor an imaginary or frivolous doubt. However, proof the accused isprobably guilty is not sufficient. [19] The accused bears no burden to prove his innocence. He has chosen not to call evidence, and that fact forms no part of thesereasons.

He retains the right to remain silent throughout these proceedings. [20] While the Crown must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the same is not true of each individual piece of evidence. Thecase must be decided on the whole of the evidence, and not in piece-meal fashion. R v B. (G.), (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR57. So, for example, while a witness generally may lack credibility, corroborating evidence on a material fact may lend weight to thatevidence, despite its general frailty.

[ 21 ] The trier of fact must assess each witness’s testimony for its credibility and reliability. That is, is the witness telling the truth? Is the witness’s memory accurate? Again, these assessments are not to be done in isolation, but on the evidence as a whole. The trier of fact may choose to accept all, some, or none of a witness’s testimony. (See, e.g., R v W.H. , 2013 SCC 22 , [2013] 2 SCR 180). WITNESSES 1. Skye Pruden [ 22 ] I found Skye Pruden to be an honest witness who experienced a terrible event.

She suffers from seizures and has memory problems, so her memory may not be 100% accurate, but she was telling the truth as she remembers it. It is not surprising, given the traumatic events and her medical condition, that she may be mistaken about some things. While the details of her account may not be fully reliable, generally, her recollection is corroborated by other evidence. [ 23 ] She says she and her father had just left Georgie’s on their bikes. Her dad was wearing a backpack and also had an orange bag containing items including a gardening tool.

She says one guy approached them, running slow, and asked her dad, “What’s your name.” He replied, “Barry Pruden.” The guy seemed satisfied with that answer. He did not try to steal her dad’s bike. The individual then approached Skye and asked her name. At this point, her dad “freaked out,” jumped off his bike and said, “That’s my fucking daughter.” [ 24 ] Two other guys and one girl were on the riverbank side of the street. One of them ran toward them across the street. She saw they had knives, so she told her dad to take out his gardening tool.

The first individual looked like he was going to punch her or grab her bag or something. She says he looked high. [ 25 ] She says Mr. Pruden started swinging his garden tool, saying “Come on, motherfuckers.” A bunch of other guys jumped over the fence by A&W. Skye saw her dad walking backwards, swinging the garden tool, while the group surrounded him. She grabbed both bikes and started calling for help, asking someone to call the police. This is consistent with the evidence of Carlon Custer, who heard someone shouting to call the police.

At this point, Skye says her dad was walking backwards toward the bridge, pursued by the group. This is also corroborated by the video evidence. [ 26 ] At Georgie’s, Skye says she cried for help, but the people there were drunk and told her to “fuck off.” She tried knocking on a friend’s door, but there was no answer. She found someone to help her, and let this person ride her dad’s bike to try to find help. When she got back to River Street, the police were already there. [ 27 ] In cross-examination, she acknowledges she originally told the police the group was in their thirties.

She says, after reviewing the video, she now thinks they were in their teens. Given the shocking, stressful event she had just experienced and the short time she had to observe the attackers, I find this error does not diminish her evidence overall. Although she did not know how many individuals were involved, and she could not identify any of them, her testimony is largely corroborated by the video evidence, and by the evidence of Carlon Custer. 2. Carlon Custer [ 28 ] On the evening in question, Carlon Custer and a friend were driving down River Street with the windows open.

Although there was some confusion about which direction Mr. Custer was travelling, it is clear that he passed by the scene twice, then called the police. The first time he drove by, he saw about four youths, all dressed in black and white, surrounding an older gentleman. He did not see any weapons, but he heard yelling. Concerned for the safety of the older man, he turned his vehicle around and drove back to the scene. He heard someone yelling for help, to call the police. That person was likely Skye Pruden.

On the second pass, he saw a group of individuals standing around the older man, who was on his knees holding his stomach. He saw the youths run straight down to the riverbank, toward the Rotary Trail, which runs alongside the river. [ 29 ] In cross-examination, he testified that he was driving the speed limit, which is 50 km/h on that stretch of road. He says he was paying attention to the road. The video from the court house surveillance camera shows a vehicle driving by slowly while the events are occurring. This is likely Mr. Custer’s vehicle. The vehicle is progressing slowly enough for Mr.

Custer to have observed what he says he observed. [ 30 ] Mr. Custer was not always clear that he should testify only to what he personally observed. For example, he said one youth

might have had a knife, but later said he did not see any weapons. He may have been relating what he learned about this case from other sources. However, I am satisfied he observed a group of youths surrounding Mr. Pruden, then running away north across the street and down to the riverbank. 3. C.S. [ 31 ] C.S. is the adopted father of a co-accused, M.M. C.S. has memory problems due to a small stroke he suffered in the past. On May 28, 2022, he resided on 9 th Street East in Prince Albert with his two natural sons and M.M., who was 14 years old at the time.

On the date in question, M.M. was at the house with four or five other teenagers, including the accused, K.R. Although C.S. did not know K.R.’s name at the time, he identified him in court. The youths were starting to drink alcohol, so C.S. told them to leave. They left as a group. [ 32 ] The group returned later that night. They were all dressed in black and white clothing, consistent with Carlon Custer’s description of Mr. Pruden’s assailants. Regarding alcohol consumption, C.S. says he could never tell if M.M. had been drinking. He did not pay attention to K.R. so as to notice if he was intoxicated.

The youths were agitated. They said someone tried to rob them. M.M. was helping K.K. to bandage a wound on his hand. C.S. told them to leave, because they were trying to bring drugs and booze into the house. He gave them a ride. He dropped K.R. off somewhere on the West Flat, not at any particular house. Again, he did not notice any signs of intoxication in K.R. C.S. did not personally see the cut on K.R.’s hand, nor did he see any weapons. [ 33 ] Despite C.S.’s professed memory problems, I accept his evidence.

His evidence regarding the injury to K.R.’s hand is corroborated by the photographic evidence taken upon his arrest. As well, K.R.’s blood was found on the Rotary Trail, consistent with him receiving an injury in the altercation. Mr. Pruden’s blood was found on M.M.’s shoes, as well as on K.R.’s shoes. The people involved in stabbing Mr. Pruden were at C.S.’s residence both before and after the attack on Barry Pruden. 4. R.F. [ 34 ] R.F. was 13 years old when he gave his statement to police. He did not want to testify in this case, although he honoured his subpoena and tried to comply.

He was not able to testify in the courtroom. He tried to testify from the soft room via video link but was still unable to communicate his evidence. Finally, the Crown applied without objection to have a portion of his video statement entered pursuant to

section 715.1 of the Criminal Code . He adopted the statement in court. [ 35 ] R.F. was not present during the events of May 28, 2022, but is familiar with many of the players involved. He is Facebook friends with E.T., the other young witness in this case. He used to hang out with K.R. His evidence is that, in the days following the incident, K.R. admitted to stabbing Barry Pruden. [ 36 ] Although I believe he was being honest in his statement, his evidence is nonetheless troubling. He gave his statement on December 12, 2022, several months after the fact.

Much of his statement contains gossip, information gleaned from social media, double and triple hearsay, and conclusions he reached himself from the evidence he had gathered. [ 37 ] Moreover, the circumstances surrounding K.R.’s alleged statement to him are vague. The statement was not actually made to R.F., but to another friend. It is unclear whether the statement was made in person or via text message to another youth. The statement itself lacks detail. R.F. says K.R. was trying to deflect blame by saying he only stabbed the deceased in the leg. While Mr.

Pruden did receive square-shaped wounds to his thigh, the level of corroboration is not such that I can have any confidence that K.R. actually made this statement. [ 38 ] If he did make the statement, I do not know what words he used. I do not know if R.F. is accurately relating what K.R. said, or reaching his own conclusions about what K.R. meant and what K.R. did. Considering the fact that K.R. was in custody four days after the homicide and considering the wealth of information circulating in the community between May 28 and December 12, 2022, I give no weight to R.F.’s evidence. 5.

E.T. [ 39 ] E.T. was also 13 years old at the time of the offence. He gave a statement to police two days after Mr. Pruden was killed. At trial, the Crown commenced a voir dire to admit his statement pursuant to

section 715.1 of the Criminal Code . Although E.T. attended court to answer his subpoena, and promised to tell the truth, he walked out of the courtroom while the prosecutor was playing his video statement, saying, “I’m not testifying.” Sergeant Anderson then took the stand to prove the statement, and the Court continued to watch

the video. E.T. then re-entered the courtroom with his mother and watched until Court adjourned for the day. He was ordered to re-attend the next day to complete his testimony, but he did not return. Because of his young age, the Crown did not want to pursuecontempt proceedings against him. Instead, the Crown successfully applied to have his statement admitted into evidence under theprincipled exception to the hearsay rule. [40] Police took a warned statement from E.T. on May 30, 2022, two days after the homicide. E.T. approached police because hewas afraid he would be blamed for killing Barry Pruden.

He worried others would “point fingers” at him. His aunt, who was presentwith him during the initial part of the interview, interpreted this to mean he was afraid of being called a snitch, but his statement makesclear that he was also concerned about being charged and going to jail. [41] E.T.’s statement contains several often-inconsistent versions of events. In the first version, he says he was near the A&Wwhen he heard screaming. He ran toward the sound and saw a group of people. Someone told him the victim stabbed “my bro,” whogot mad and stabbed the victim in the head, arm, and chest.

E.T. was not present during the stabbing and only heard from someone elsewhat happened. [42] In the second version, E.T. was hanging out with people he had just met. They were calling him a “pussy” and telling him “togo stab up that guy.” He refused, so K.R. did it. [43] In the third version, he and his friends were walking down River Street beside Georgie’s. K.R. said he was going to ask toborrow somebody’s bike, that the person was not going to let him take it, and that K.R. would stab him for it. E.T. told him to chill outbecause he did not want to be charged with anything. K.R. was trying to stab E.T., too.

K.R. was trying to make people do stupid thingslike rob people. K.R. approached Mr. Pruden and said, “Sauce up your bike.” K.R. tried to take the bike and Mr. Pruden “self defencedhimself.” K.R. pulled out a “strap” and dodged Mr. Pruden. Mr. Pruden hit K.R. in the hand with his weapon and he started bleeding. [44] In the fourth version, E.T. saw K.R. approach Mr. Pruden, who was alone, walking his bike. E.T. walked away. About fiveminutes into his walk, he heard someone scream. When he came back, he heard sirens, and everyone scattered. He heard from otherpeople that K.R. stabbed Mr.

Pruden in the head, in the arm, and in the chest. [45] In a fifth version, he says Mr. Pruden was swinging his weapon. K.R. was dodging him. Mr. Pruden got K.R. in the hand. K.R. got really mad, approached Mr. Pruden, stabbed him in the head and pulled out his knife. E.T. was getting scared and tried to callK.R. and the others. He saw Mr. Pruden fall to the ground and saw everyone else surround him. E.T. then “started walking realsmooth” because he did not want to get stopped by police. He thinks they all started stabbing Mr. Pruden. K.R. then took off with Mr.Pruden’s bike.

He heard police sirens and everyone “scattered like cockroaches.” [46] After Sergeant Anderson told him they would gather footage from surveillance cameras in the area, E.T. gave his finalversion. He says he was at the back of the group. K.R. told Mr. Pruden to get off his bike. Mr. Pruden said, “Fuck that” and startedswinging something at K.R. He struck K.R. in the hand. K.R. looked at his hand, which was bleeding. K.R. became angry and stabbedMr. Pruden in the head. He dropped to the ground. Four people began kicking him, and K.R. stabbed him multiple times. K.R. lookedlike he was trying to kill him.

K.R. stabbed him “good in the ribs.” They heard police sirens and ran away. [47] E.T. is not a credible witness. As defence counsel points out, E.T. never gives a clear answer to the simple question, “Wherewere you?” His statement is riddled with inconsistencies and evasion. In his statement, he says that, after the stabbing, K.R. rode awayfrom the scene on Barry Pruden’s bike. This cannot be true, as video from Georgie’s shows Skye Pruden with both bikes. [48] E.T. appears to be a young person of bad character. He says he was involved with Terror Squad when he lived in Saskatoon.

He says he was carrying a loaded gun that night but did not use it. His knowledge of events is such that he was clearly present, and verylikely participated in the attack. He is a classic “unsavoury witness,” as contemplated in R v Vetrovec, (SCC), [1982] 1SCR 811. As such, his evidence must be treated with caution. [49] E.T. was following media coverage of the case. At one point, he asks the officer, “Don’t you read the news?” He alsomentioned Snapchat and other social media. Some of his information could have been gleaned from these sources. For example, heknew that Mr. Pruden was 47 years old.

That information likely comes from the media, not from E.T.’s personal observations.

[ 50 ] E.T.’s statement is so troubling, it is difficult to accept any part of it that is not corroborated by other reliable evidence. On the other hand, his account of the stabbing itself is so detailed, I am confident it comes from his personal knowledge. These details could not be gleaned from media reports. Clearly, he was present at the scene.

Furthermore, his statement was taken within two days of the event, making it less likely to be the product of rumour or gossip. [ 51 ] The most troubling aspect of E.T.’s statement to police is when he asks, “What if I did it?” He then clarifies that he means what if he kicked Mr. Pruden. Throughout the statement, he denies stabbing him. Nevertheless, I must determine whether the evidence eliminates the possibility that the stabber was E.T., and not K.R. [ 52 ] E.T. says Barry Pruden was swinging a hose or a pole. This is corroborated by the evidence of Skye Pruden, as well as the video evidence.

He says K.R. was stabbed in the hand. Although he may have gleaned this fact from social media, his evidence is corroborated by C.S. and pictures taken of K.R. upon his arrest. E.T. says K.R. stabbed Mr. Pruden in the head (with a gesture demonstrating said stabbing motion). Mr. Pruden was stabbed just under the ear, on the side of the head. E.T. says K.R. stabbed Mr. Pruden in the chest, in the ribs, in the arm. Mr. Pruden was stabbed in the chest and through the ribs.

He also sustained a stab wound to the top of his shoulder, which might reasonably be described as his arm. [ 53 ] E.T. had blood on his shirt, but it did not belong to K.R or to Barry Pruden, but to some unknown individual. While K.R. and M.M. were close enough to the deceased to get his blood on their shoes, there is no evidence E.T. was similarly proximate. K.R. was close enough to Mr. Pruden to be injured by the garden tool. The physical evidence supports this version of E.T.’s evidence, that Barry Pruden swung the garden tool, struck K.R. in the hand, that K.R. became angry and stabbed Mr.

Pruden multiple times, in the head, the chest, and the arm. [ 54 ] I can think of no other explanation for the physical evidence but that E.T. is telling the truth that K.R. stabbed Barry Pruden. Although I reject outright or give very little weight to the bulk of E.T.’s evidence, I accept that K.R. was the person who first approached Mr. Pruden. I accept that K.R. stabbed him in the head. I accept that K.R. stabbed him in the chest, causing the wounds that ultimately caused his death. Other members of the group joined in and either kicked or stabbed Mr.

Pruden until they heard sirens and ran away. [ 55 ] I find the group ran away north across River Street and down to the path by the riverbank. This is proven by the video evidence, by Carlon Custer’s testimony, and by K.R.’s blood being found on the path. MENS REA [ 56 ] On the evidence, I have no doubt that K.R. personally caused the death of Barry Pruden by stabbing him. That leaves the mental element.

Did K.R. intend to kill Barry Pruden, or intend to cause him bodily harm he knew was likely to cause death, and was reckless as to whether death ensued? [ 57 ] It is a rational inference that a sane, sober person intends the natural consequences of their actions. Where alcohol or drugs are involved, or even youth, the inference may become less rational, but the evidence as to the accused’s mental state must be assessed in the totality of the circumstances.

As Judge Schiefner so nicely summarized in R v Sasakamoose , 2020 SKPC 21 at para 46 : [46] Evidence of a person’s intent to cause death may be found in direct evidence (such as the accused’s own words – R v Lavallee , 2017 SKPC 27 at para. 77 [ Lavallee ]) or it may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances, including the conduct of the accused and the context within which the violence occurred.

For example, when a weapon is used, the following factors have been found to be relevant to determining the specific intent to kill; the nature of the weapon used including its lethality – R v McArthur , 2013 SKCA 139 at para 10 , 427 Sask R 180; how the weapon was used including the force with which the wounds were inflicted – R v Gamble and Bluebell , 2010 SKQB 414 at para 12 , 363 Sask R 311 [ Gamble ]; the nature of the wounds and whether they were to a vital part of the anatomy – R v Bear , 2013 SKQB 303 at para 29 , 428 Sask R 166; and the persistence of the attack – in the case of a knife, whether the stabbing was repeated – Gamble at para. 12, Lavallee at para. 78 and R v Paskimin , 2012 SKCA 35 at para 37 . [ 58 ] Here, K.R. stabbed Barry Pruden not once, not twice, but four times.

He stabbed him in the side of his head. He stabbed him on the top of his shoulder. He stabbed him twice in the chest with a knife that had a 6 ½ or 7-inch blade. The knife pierced four layers of clothing, puncturing the heart and lung. Enough force was used to cause fatal injuries. If someone stabs a person in the head and the heart, it is a rational conclusion that he intends to kill that person. When Mr. Pruden fell to the ground, the attack did not stop. No assistance was offered. Instead, the attack continued until the group was frightened off by approaching police.

[ 59 ] K.R. accosted the victim and became angry when the victim defended himself. When K.R. was injured, he retaliated with extreme violence. The nature and extent of Mr. Pruden’s injuries are so severe that the only rational conclusion is that K.R. intended him to die. At the very least, he intended to cause bodily harm he knew likely to cause death and was reckless as to whether death ensued. [ 60 ] I have considered whether the defence of intoxication arises on the evidence.

While there is some evidence of K.R. drinking, it is insufficient to cast doubt either on his capacity to form the requisite intent, or on whether he in fact formed the requisite intent. E.T.’s statements about everybody being drunk were usually in response to questions tending to elicit incriminating information from him, such as how close he was to the attack. I have no evidence before me upon which I could conclude that K.R. was intoxicated to the point of lacking control over his actions or lacking the ability to understand the consequences of his actions.

C.S., who gave him a ride after the incident, noticed nothing about his state of sobriety. [ 61 ] Counsel did not raise it, but I have also considered the issue of provocation. E.T.’s evidence is that K.R. became angry after he was stabbed in the hand, and that is when he stabbed Mr. Pruden multiple times. However, given that Mr. Pruden was clearly defending himself from multiple attackers, provocation will not lie as a defence. The accused was clearly the aggressor, and Mr. Pruden had a right to defend himself. Similarly, self-defence is not available, given that, when Mr.

Pruden started swinging at K.R., he could have simply walked away. CONCLUSION [ 62 ] On all the evidence, I find the Crown has met its burden. I find that, on May 28, 2022, at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, K.R. stabbed Barry Pruden multiple times, intentionally causing his death. On Count 1 of the Information, I find him guilty. Counts 2 and 3 are dismissed. Dated this 3 rd day of May, A.D., 2023, at the City of Prince Albert, in the Province of Saskatchewan. ___________________________ F.M. Daunt, J