The Saskatchewan Court of Appeals says there will be no change to four guilty verdicts related to a man threatening to shoot his then-girlfriend and her daughter on James Smith reserve in January of 2014.
Martin Gilbert Burns failed in his attempt to appeal a conviction for uttering threats, unlawful confinement and using a gun while committing those acts.
The charges came about after the 17-year-old daughter of the woman Burns was dating at the time texted her sister the evening of Jan. 4, 2014 saying that Burns and her mother were drunk, and Burns was threatening to shoot them or anyone who came to the house.
According to those teen’s text messages, later in the night Burns and the teen girl’s mom were fighting and he had grabbed the gun and threatened both her and her mom with the rifle if they left the James Smith home. The sister’s husband called police and they got ahold of the complainant while she was hiding in a bathroom.
Police eventually came to the home and were outside the home for more than an hour before they were sure everyone in the home was safe.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeals ruling recounts the facts from that night, saying “Given the circumstances reported to (police), they waited until they were in sufficient numbers before using a megaphone, at 1:45 a.m., to order Mr. Burns to come outside. They observed no response,” and someone started turning the lights off indoors after a constable approached the door, announced himself and ordered the occupants to open the door.
Seven minutes later, the teen opened the door and was taken a safe distance away. She later gave a statement to police.
Martin’s appeal argued that the text messages and recorded statement from the complainant weren’t enough evidence.
Court of Appeals Justice Caldwell found that the trial judge was correct in using those two pieces of evidence – which are usually termed as hearsay – because of the teen girl, her mother, or Burns, none were forthright while testifying. Burns’ testimony was deemed “self serving,” the mother’s was deemed too vague because of how drank she was, and the complainant tried to leave the witness box at one point saying “I don’t want to do this.”
The judge found the recorded statement from the girl and her texts to indicate real “terror” and alo matched with the evidence given by police.
The trial judge’s ruling stands because appeals Justice Caldwell believed the rationale behind the ruling was sound.