R. v. Watson, 2010 ONSC 6765

CITATION : R. v. Watson, 2010 ONSC 6765 COURT FILE NO.: 0106/10 DATE: 20101210 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: R. v. Linda Watson BEFORE: Justice Edward Belobaba COUNSEL: D. Foulds for the Crown T. Boutzouvis for the accused HEARD: December 6 and 7, 2010 ENDORSEMENT [ 1 ] Linda Watson is charged with wilfully attempting to obstruct the course of justice by tampering with evidence contrary to s. 139(2) of the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] The charge arises out of a domestic incident that took place in a home on Husband Drive, in the Steeles and Islington area of Toronto in the early morning hours of March 1, 2009.

Elizabeth Akinyode (Liz), her fiancé Urie Chippie (Urie) and his adult son Richard were living in the single-family dwelling. [ 3 ] As a result of what occurred in their home that Sunday morning, Urie was taken to the hospital with stab wounds, Liz was arrested and charged with the stabbing (assault with a weapon) and Linda Watson was charged with obstruction of justice. As things turned out, the charges against Liz were dropped, Uri and Liz have married and Linda Watson and Liz are no longer friends. Ms.

Watson remains suspended from her job as a Case Manager Co-ordinator in the Crown Attorney’s office at Old City Hall as she continues to face this obstruction charge. [ 4 ] The trial of this matter was very short, only two days. The Crown called three police witnesses and one civilian witness. The police witnesses included the two officers who responded to the 911 call and the crime scene officer. The defence called the accused and two character witnesses. There is no real dispute about what Watson did or appeared to be doing. There is also no dispute about the applicable law.

The only issue is mens rea : in doing what she did, did Ms.Watson intend to obstruct justice? [ 5 ] For reasons set out below, I have no difficulty concluding that Ms. Watson is not guilty on the obstruction count. Not only do I find that the offence of obstruction has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I find as a fact that Ms. Watson never intentionally tried to do anything that would impede or interfere with the police investigation of the stabbing or otherwise obstruct justice.

The incident [ 6 ] On Saturday evening, February 28, 2009 Linda Watson (“Linda”) picked up her friend Liz and together they attended a house-warming party in Brampton. When the party ended, Linda drove Liz home. They arrived on Husband Drive around 2 a.m. They saw a woman sitting in Urie’s car and Urie coming out of the house carrying a large box. Liz jumped out of Linda’s car to confront the woman. The woman explained that she had been out on a date with Urie. Liz became angry and told Urie, “It’s over...we’re done.” They began to argue. [ 7 ] Linda urged the other woman to leave and she obliged.

Linda also wanted to leave. She had a good job with the Crown Attorney’s office and didn’t want to get involved. As she began to drive away, she heard Urie say “This is my house too” and saw him chasing Liz up the driveway and into the house. Linda stopped and parked her car. Fearing for her friend’s safety she decided to go into the house. The door was open. She heard Liz and Urie screaming at each other. [ 8 ] As she walked into the house, she noticed a knife on the floor. She picked it up and saw some jacket fluff on the blade. Urie had been wearing a winter jacket. She then saw Urie lying on the floor.

She heard Liz calling 911. Urie asked for a towel. He then took off his jacket and Linda saw that he was bleeding through his sweatshirt. She “freaked out” and threw the knife she was holding into the kitchen sink. Urie’s son, Richard, who had come up from his basement bedroom, was trying to take his father to the hospital. Liz was extremely upset. Everyone was still yelling. Liz asked Linda to “get me out of here.” [ 9 ] Linda drove Liz around the block trying to calm her down. She asked Liz what happened and Liz kept saying, “I was so stupid ...

I don’t know what happened.” Linda continued to drive around to give Urie and Richard time to leave the house and go to the hospital. Liz wanted to go to Linda’s but Linda said no. She knew that they had to return to the house because the police were on their way and as Linda put it, “I wasn’t going to lose my job over her.” By this time, Linda had realized that Urie had been stabbed with the knife and Liz could be going to jail. [ 10 ] They returned to the house a few minutes later. Richard and Urie were gone. Liz saw the blood in the house and became hysterical.

She ran to the kitchen, turned on the water full-blast, grabbed a dish rag and started cleaning the counter. Liz was sobbing and hyperventilating. Water was splashing everywhere. It was almost 3 a.m. Linda was composed but by then was emotionally drained, exhausted. [ 11 ] She took the wet knife out of the sink. She did not see any blood on it. In her statement to PC Bartlett she said she “dried it off

with a paper towel.” In her evidence at trial she was more explicit. She wrapped a paper towel around the handle and was squeezing the knife-handle with both hands while leaning against the counter and trying to talk to Liz and calm her down . Just then the police walked in. One of the officers, PC Bartlett, told them to stop what they were doing. Linda immediately put the knife down on the counter. The paper towel was still wrapped around the handle. [ 12 ] Bartlett’s partner, PC Caccia, took Liz to one part of the house; PC Bartlett took Linda to the dining room to get her statement.

Linda gave a detailed statement of what she saw from start to finish. Bartlett made eleven pages of notes. At trial, he described Linda as being fully co-operative and very forthcoming: “she was not hiding anything ... she told me that the knife had jacket fluff on it ... she was not trying to hide that the knife was used in the incident.” [ 13 ] At one point during the interview, Urie called Linda on her cell phone. PC Bartlett asked Linda to find out which hospital. Linda obliged and a police unit was dispatched to that hospital. Linda completed her statement. Liz was arrested and transported to 31 Division.

Around 4.30 a.m. Linda was able to leave and she drove home to Thornhill. A couple of hours later, a detective called and advised her that she was going to be charged. He asked that she turn herself in at 11 a.m. at 31 Division. Linda did as he requested. [ 14 ] The paper towel was never found. The kitchen knife no longer exists. It was destroyed by the Toronto Police Service. The applicable law [ 15 ] As already noted, there is no dispute about the applicable law.

In order to find the accused guilty of obstructing justice on the facts herein, Crown counsel must prove two things: one, that the actions of the accused had a tendency to obstruct, impede or interfere with the police investigation of the stabbing; and two, that the accused intended by her actions to obstruct the course of justice by interfering with the police investigation. [ 16 ] There is no dispute that picking up the wet knife out of the sink and drying or cleaning it with the paper towel is an action that would have a tendency to impede or interfere with the police investigation – by removing or distorting finger prints or blood spots.

There is also no dispute that if Linda did this in an effort to interfere with the investigation, perhaps to protect her friend, that she would be guilty of obstruction. [ 17 ] The issue, as already noted, is whether in handling the knife the way she did, Linda intended or meant to interfere with the police investigation. It is not enough if Linda’s actions were accidental or the result of a mistake or a simple error in judgment.

The mens rea element in the obstruction of justice offence requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Linda knew that what she was doing with the knife would obstruct or interfere with the investigation and she intended that it do so. [1] [ 18 ] The trier of fact can consider the following: the words and conduct of the accused, before, at the time and after the actions were taken. All of these things, and the circumstances in which they happened, may shed light on the accused’s intention.

Basically, the trier of fact must use his or her “good common sense.” [2] Analysis [ 19 ] At the time of the incident, Linda Watson was a capable and experienced Case Manager Co-ordinator in the Crown Attorney’s office. She dealt with crime scene evidence every day. She clearly understood the importance of evidence preservation. What Linda did on March 1, 2009 was careless, even stupid, but she did it without thinking. As Linda stated at various points in her evidence: “I was not cleaning the knife ... I wrapped the paper towel around the knife-handle and I was squeezing the handle with both hands ...

I don’t know why I was doing this ...I couldn’t take the noise, the emotion, the chaos, it was horrible ... I was exhausted ... I wasn’t thinking any more ... but I did not try to destroy evidence.” [ 20 ] I believe her. [ 21 ] What she did was a mistake. But Linda did not intend to alter or destroy evidence and interfere with the police investigation. She did not intend to obstruct justice. I find support for this strong finding of credibility in the following: ▪ Linda was very aware that she had a sensitive job with the Crown Attorney’s office.

As soon as she dropped Liz off and the fighting started about Urie’s infidelity, Linda wanted to leave. She did not want to get involved. ▪ After the stabbing, while driving around trying to calm Liz down and giving Urie and Richard time to leave for the hospital, Liz asked her to take them to her home in Thornhill. Linda refused. She knew that the police were on their way and that they had to be there for questioning. She didn’t want to lose her job because of her friend. She returned to Liz’s house within minutes.

It is difficult to believe that the same person who knew police procedures and was understandably concerned about jeopardizing her job at the Crown Attorney’s office would just minutes later be cleaning a knife to obstruct justice. ▪ Upon re-entering the house and seeing all the blood, Liz had a breakdown, became hysterical and started cleaning the kitchen counter. There is no suggestion in the evidence that Liz was doing this to cover up what had happened or that she had asked that Linda help her do this.

It appears to me that Liz’s frenzied cleaning was prompted more by the horrors of the evening and the sight of the blood than by any concerted effort to rid the house of incriminating evidence. ▪ Linda’ explanation was to why she took the wet knife out of the sink and grabbed a paper towel has the ring of truth. She said she grabbed the paper towel just like she did at home whenever her hands were wet. She started drying the knife handle without thinking. Crown counsel ridicules this explanation and submits that it doesn’t make sense. In hindsight perhaps.

Or in a quiet court-room far removed from the extreme emotions of those early morning hours in that home on Husband Drive. But under the stress of what was obviously a brutally traumatic episode, I am not so sure. Maybe this is exactly what any one of us would do. ▪ Linda’s actions with the knife would not have deflected attention away from Liz. Linda saw jacket fluff on the knife when she first

came into the house and she told PC Bartlett about this, plainly indicating that Urie was stabbed while wearing his winter jacket (as was indeed the case.) ▪ Linda’s statement to PC Bartlett was long and detailed. She told the police officer what she had seen from start to finish. PC Bartlett described Linda as “fully co-operative” and “very forthcoming.” She was “not hiding anything.” ▪ For reasons unknown, the paper towel not found. There is thus no evidence of what was on paper towel. The kitchen knife was destroyed by TPS.

The photo of the knife as the police found it on the counter shows a tiny dot of blood near the tip – very difficult to see – and no other blood on knife. And recall, PC Bartlett did not see any wiping motions. ▪ PC Bartlett candidly conceded that at the time he did not think that Linda was committing a criminal offence. It was only when he briefed the detectives after returning to the station that the latter decided to charge Linda with obstruction. Crown counsel submits that PC Bartlett was still quite junior at the time – only four years on the force and not fully experienced with the obstruct justice offence.

Perhaps so. But the observation made by PC Bartlett, the only officer to witness what Linda was doing with the knife, that Linda was not committing a criminal offence still has some resonance. [ 22 ] Linda has no criminal record. The two character witnesses, both former Crown counsel who knew and had worked with Linda testified that her reputation for honesty and integrity was “impeccable” and “beyond reproach.” I do not doubt this. However, as I indicated to Crown counsel, I am not relying on this character evidence. I have concluded that Linda Watson should be acquitted because I believe her.

I found her evidence to be completely credible. [ 23 ] In his closing argument, Crown counsel pointed to four discrepancies in the evidence that, in his view, support his submission that Linda was not telling the truth and was in fact trying to clean the knife to help her friend:

(1) PC Bartlett testified that when he entered the kitchen he saw a black woman (Liz) crying hysterically and cleaning the counter, and a white woman (Linda) holding a knife and a paper towel. As he now recalls, the knife blade had more blood on it than just the tiny spot near the tip. He did not see any wiping motions, but it appeared to him that Linda was cleaning the knife with the paper towel.

(2) In the “late entry” notes that PC Bartlett made later, at the station, he noted that he had asked Linda, just before he took her statement, why she was cleaning the knife. Linda’s response was that it didn’t have any blood on it, just jacket fluff. In her evidence at trial, Linda denied being asked, “Why were you cleaning the knife?”

(3) Crown counsel says that another example of Linda lying to the police was when she was asked “What happened here?” and she replied, “I don’t know what happened.” This was a lie, argues Crown counsel, because she knew by that time that Urie had been stabbed with the kitchen knife (and thus knew something about what happened.)

(4) Finally, says the Crown, Linda failed to tell the police that when Urie called her on her cell phone (and told her which hospital he was in) he also told asked her not to tell the police anything – that he was going to “give them a story” that two women attacked him outside the house.

By failing to disclose this information to PC Bartlett, Linda was not being completely truthful and this should give me cause to question her overall credibility. [ 24 ] In my view, none of these examples undermine Linda’s credibility about what she was doing with the knife. [ 25 ] First, the observation made at trial by PC Bartlett on re-direct that he remembered more blood on the knife blade than just the tiny spot near the tip. This particular observation was not in his notes.

What he wrote in his notes was that the knife on the counter had “a trace of blood on its blade.” It is possible that Linda had cleaned off the ‘extra blood’ that the police officer thought he had seen before she put the knife down. But Bartlett also testified that he saw no wiping motions. Further, the paper towel that Linda says was still wrapped around the handle when she placed the knife down on the counter was never found and obviously never examined.

I find it difficult to understand how the police officer could have seen the ‘extra blood’ on the knife blade but did not see any wiping motions or any other actions that could explain how that ‘extra blood’ was removed. This first point is therefore not particularly compelling. [ 26 ] The second example is also benign. I accept PC Bartlett’s evidence that he asked Linda why she was cleaning the knife. However, I can understand that in what was clearly a very traumatic evening, Linda may well have forgotten being asked this question.

I also accept Bartlett’s note that Linda said there was no blood on the knife, just jacket fluff. I do not take this exchange, however, as an admission that Linda was cleaning the knife. She could simply have meant that that was nothing to clean (and so I wasn’t cleaning it.) [ 27 ] The third example relates to Linda’s saying “I don’t know what happened” when she at least knew that Urie had been stabbed. Here again, I do not see anything significant in this response. The police knew that Urie had been taken to the hospital. They saw a man’s jacket on the floor with blood on its lining.

Linda knew what she saw and told PC Bartlett about this in some detail, including the fact that when she first entered the house and picked up the knife she saw jacket fluff on the blade. PC Bartlett himself confirmed in his evidence that Linda “was not trying to hide that the knife was used in the incident.” Also recall that when Linda asked Liz the same question, Liz’s repeated response was (also) that she didn’t know what happened.

What Linda did know she told the police about and did so in detail. [ 28 ] In saying “I don’t know what happened” Linda was most likely referring to what happened that caused Liz to stab Urie with the kitchen knife. PC Bartlett’s notes record Linda saying the following: “Liz is a school teacher; she is a good citizen. I don’t know what happened tonight.” In other words, Linda could not explain and did not know how it came to be that this “good citizen” ended up stabbing her fiancé with a kitchen knife.

In my view, that’s what she meant. [ 29 ] The final example from Crown counsel of Linda being untruthful is that she did not tell the police that Urie, in his cell phone call to her, asked her to say nothing to the police and told her that he was going to “give them a story” about how he was stabbed. But Linda did not listen to Urie about “saying nothing to the police.” She continued giving a detailed and truthful statement to PC Bartlett. [ 30 ] Should Linda have told PC Bartlett about Urie’s intention to fabricate a false story in order to protect Liz? Crown counsel did

not suggest that she was legally obligated to do so. I don’t know if many people in the same position, given the stress and confusion of the overall situation and the conflicting interests, would have volunteered this information at that very moment. As it turned out, PC Bartlett got a call from the police officer at the hospital and knew even before he left Liz’s house that “the victim was off side … obviously lying … says a girl by the name of Takesha stabbed him.” (Ex. 6). As far as I know, Urie was not charged with obstruction even though he had lied about what happened.

In any event, the fact that Linda did not volunteer the information about Urie’s intention to fabricate a story does not, in my view, undermine Linda’s overall credibility. [ 31 ] In sum, I cannot find Ms. Watson guilty of obstructing justice on the evidence before me. What she did was foolish and careless but it was not done with the intention of interfering with or impeding the police investigation or otherwise obstructing justice. Disposition [ 32 ] I find Linda Watson not guilty of obstruction of justice. Belobaba J. Date: December 10, 2010