EDITOR’S NOTE: This story contains graphic content that may disturb some readers.
The decision of whether Candace Moostoos is guilty or not guilty of murder now lies in the hands of 12 Melfort jurors.
In closing arguments, defence conceded that Moostoos is guilty of manslaughter in the May 2015 stabbing death of Alpheus Burns. Both Moostoos and Burns were members of James Smith Cree Nation.
To be found guilty of murder, the jury must find that Moostoos had an intent to kill.
Lawyer Mary McAuley argued that does not exist in the case, partially because Moostoos had been in advanced stages of intoxication due to taking crystal meth and drinking heavily.
Crown prosecutor Tyla Olenchuk argued that there are levels of drunk, and said there is evidence that Moostoos’ level of intoxication would not have affected her ability to form an intent to kill.
McAuley’s second defence argument is what’s called “provocation,” and is a legal term that takes into account the “inherent frailty of the human condition.”
She told the jury provocation exists if a “sufficiently serious wrongful act” has been taken against the accused that could reasonably lead a person to a sudden rage and loss of control.
During the trial, the jury heard that Moostoos went to Burns’ home that night willing to have sex with him for $40. Instead, he offered her $10 for oral sex and launched a stream of insults at her.
McAuley said Moostoos was used to being degraded by others, and wasn’t affected by Burns’ comments until he called Moostoos a “sick woman.”
When Moostoos realized Burns was trying to say he had given her AIDS in past sexual encounters, “without thought she stabbed him,” McAuley said.
McAuley argued the AIDS comment was the provocation in this case.
McAuley outlined Moostoos’ history as an opiate addict who prostituted herself to feed that addiction. Her parents were alcoholics, she was taken into foster care, and later in life lost custody of her kids.
Trial testimony stated that as a young girl, Moostoos has been sexually assaulted by Burns, as had two other trial witnesses. Moostoos’ actions made it impossible to try Burns in a court of law for these allegations, Olenchuk told the jury. She added that Burns was not the person on trial.
McAuley urged the jury to put themselves into Moostoos’ shoes at the moment she realized she had een “deliberately exposed” to AIDS, which McAuley called “a death sentence.”
McAuley said just because Moostoos was a prostitute did not mean she doesn’t have feelings and that “she’s not allowed to react.”
In closing, Olenchuk pointed to Moostoos’ video statement in which Moostoos said she had been “pissed off” with the way Burns was speaking to her the night he died. Olenchuk pointed to testimony from Moostoos’ father, in which he said Moostoos had been getting tired of Burns asking her to take off clothes for money.
She said Moostoos was aware of rumors that Burns had AIDS, yet defence wants the jury to believe this information surprised Moostoos.
Olenchuk told the jury “provocation and revenge are two different things.”
Most telling, she said, was Moostoos’ testimony saying “eye for an eye.”
Olenchuk says Moostoos’ steps to cover up what she did prove her intent.
The jury received instructions from the Court of Queen’s Bench judge on Wednesday, and was left to come up with a verdict.