 |
| John L. Hill |
The newspaper report stemmed from an RCMP news release announcing that two suspects had been arrested: 23-year-old Kardon Ryan Demetroff on May 4 and 26-year-old Celeste Morningstar Saddleback on May 6. The report continued, stating that Demetroff faced a charge of second-degree murder, while Saddleback was charged with first-degree murder.
Muhammad khaleeq: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
Demetroff appealed his conviction to the Alberta Court of Appeal. The appeal decision was released on Nov. 12, 2025 (R. v. Demetroff, 2025 ABCA 373).
The facts accepted by the Appeal Court can be summarized as follows: at about 4 a.m. on April 12, 2020, Larry Parker was called by one of his tenants, who complained about loud banging from the upstairs tenants. He told the caller he would go and ask them to be quiet, and he drove to the property in Wetaskiwin.
After speaking with the upstairs tenants, Parker encountered Demetroff and Saddleback outside.
In his statements to police, Demetroff said Parker agreed to drive the pair somewhere in Wetaskiwin. At some point during the ride, Demetroff directed Parker to drive towards Maskwacis, a community in central Alberta. When Parker said he didn’t want to drive any further, Demetroff stated that he made him. When they came to a rural road outside Maskwacis, Demetroff said he told Parker he had a gun and told him to get out of the vehicle.
Demetroff got out of the vehicle, intending to force Parker out, but Parker drove off with Saddleback still in the passenger seat.
Demetroff said he fired a shot at the vehicle, aiming for Parker. The bullet missed, and the car came to a stop. Demetroff then caught up to the vehicle, and sometime later, Parker was shot. Demetroff blamed Saddleback for the fatal shooting.
The victim was found unresponsive at about 8 a.m. on the side of a rural road and was declared dead at the scene. Both accused stated at trial that the other had shot the victim.
Although the Crown couldn’t prove the murder was planned or deliberate, it argued that a first-degree murder charge against Demetroff was appropriate because Parker was killed while being forcibly confined in the vehicle. The prosecution submitted that Demetroff was guilty of the charge, whether he was the principal shooter, had merely given Saddleback the gun, or had only entered into the common intention to forcibly confine Parker and rob him of his vehicle, knowing that murder would be a probable consequence.
On appeal, Demetroff argued that the trial judge erred by failing to properly instruct the jury that it could not rely on disbelief of his exculpatory evidence. The Court of Appeal agreed that this was offensive to the principle established in R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 that a judge must instruct a jury that it is not necessary for jurors to believe defence evidence on a vital issue. Instead, if conflicting evidence creates a reasonable doubt, they must acquit. The trial judge erred in finding that the W.(D.) framework did not apply.
Demetroff also argued that the trial judge erred by admitting evidence of discreditable conduct that a jury should not have considered. The unredacted portions of Demetroff’s statement to police included references to his recent release from jail, discussions of institutions where he had previously been incarcerated and his admission that he was a member of the Hells Angels. The Appeal Court found that the trial judge warned the jury against prohibited propensity reasoning but failed to assess whether the past discreditable conduct evidence was properly admissible in the first place.
The Court of Appeal also considered the jury’s use of after-the-fact conduct. Demetroff and Saddleback both admitted that after the shooting of Parker, they fled the scene in Parker’s vehicle. Saddleback admitted she was the driver when they left. Demetroff admitted that he searched the car for valuables and took a bag containing various items that were not his. The trial judge said a jury could consider such evidence if it reflected participation in the commission of the offence. However, the trial judge failed to identify for the jury the reasonable and rational inferences that might be drawn from the after-the-fact conduct evidence. It is essential for trial judges to specifically define the issue, purpose and use for which such evidence is tendered and to articulate the reasonable and rational inferences that might be drawn from it.
These errors, the Appeal Court concluded, necessitate a new trial.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books), was released July 1. Hill is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.