 |
| John L. Hill |
The criminal case arose after a night of drinking and a prior altercation at a bar, after which William Ryerson Thomas Comber and Jesse Paluk went onto Kuz Road with firearms. Paluk stood on the roadway and fired five shots into the air, while evidence suggested that Comber also fired toward passing vehicles, one of which Dugay was seated in, returning from a night out with friends.
Forensic evidence confirmed the fatal shot did not come from Paluk’s rifle, though the exact weapon could not be conclusively identified.
Initially, Paluk was charged with second-degree murder after witnesses saw him fire a rifle. However, ballistics testing proved his rifle did not fire the fatal shot. Paluk later pleaded guilty to firearms and assault offences from that evening and became a Crown witness, identifying the accused as the second shooter. He also pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of discharging a firearm.
John Alberton: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
On appeal, Comer raised numerous grounds, effectively attempting to retry the case. The appellate court criticized this “shotgun” approach, emphasizing that appeals must focus on significant errors rather than minor or tactical issues. Many of the alleged errors, including jury management decisions, evidentiary rulings and jury instructions, were found to lack merit or to reflect reasonable trial strategy choices by defence counsel.
The key issues on appeal were the trial judge’s conduct and the reasonableness of the murder conviction. The court concluded that, although the accused was properly found responsible for the shooting, the evidence did not support a finding of murderous intent.
As a result, the appeal was dismissed, but the conviction was reduced from second-degree murder to manslaughter.
Although the Appeal Court was critical of Comber’s appeal presentation, it focused on two crucial issues. The first was the trial judge’s interjections; the second was the reasonableness of the jury’s verdict.
The court rejected Comber’s argument that the trial judge’s interventions during cross-examination were improper, concluding that the argument was based on misunderstandings of the law.
First, Comber argued that the judge should not have intervened without the Crown’s objection. The court held that a trial judge has an independent gatekeeping duty to control questioning and the admissibility of evidence, regardless of whether counsel objects.
Comber argued for broad cross-examination rights. The court clarified that although cross-examination is wide-ranging, it may be curtailed when it is repetitive, irrelevant, misleading or based on improper reasoning. Modern authorities recognize a judge’s discretion to manage proceedings.
Comber argued that defence evidence can be limited only when its prejudice substantially outweighs its value. The court rejected this, explaining that the principle applies only to otherwise admissible evidence. It does not permit the introduction of irrelevant or inadmissible evidence.
Reviewing the record, the court found that the trial judge did not exclude relevant, admissible defence evidence but intervened only to prevent improper questioning or inadmissible evidence.
Considering the trial as a whole, the court held that the judge’s interventions were measured, justified and directed at ensuring proper fact-finding. There was no pattern of unfairness or loss of impartiality.
The court outlined the standard for appellate review of a jury verdict: whether a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, could have reached the verdict. In circumstantial cases, the key issue is whether guilt is the only reasonable inference from the totality of the evidence, with deference to the jury’s fact-finding.
The court confirmed that these principles apply to both the act (actus reus) and the intent (mens rea), and that the victim’s death was clearly culpable homicide. The main issues were whether Comber fired the fatal shot and whether he had the intent required for murder.
The jury’s conclusion that Comber was the shooter was reasonable. The evidence showed that only three people were possible shooters, and the physical and eyewitness evidence excluded the others. Ballistics evidence established that the fatal shot was fired by a firearm other than the one used by Paluk. The cartridge locations, eyewitness accounts and testimony supported the presence of two shooters. Alternative theories (e.g., Paluk firing two guns or using another rifle) were speculative and unsupported. The jury was entitled to reject unreliable evidence from a jailhouse informant and to consider Comber’s lack of an innocent explanation.
Taken together, the evidence reasonably supported the finding that Comber fired the fatal shot and was guilty of culpable homicide. However, the critical issue was whether Comber had the intent required for murder under s. 229(a)(ii) — that is, intending to cause bodily harm and knowing it was likely to cause death.
While intent can be inferred from conduct (e.g., firing a gun), such an inference is permissive and must be supported by the evidence. Here, the court found that the inference of murderous intent was not reasonably available because there was no evidence that Comber aimed at the occupants; the Crown’s theory was that he aimed at the vehicle’s taillights. The shots that struck the vehicle also supported the inference that he was targeting the vehicle, not the passengers inside. Furthermore, conditions (darkness, movement, distance, defective sight) suggested recklessness and the possibility of an errant shot, not a deliberate intent to cause bodily harm.
The evidence supported a reasonable alternative inference inconsistent with murder. While the jury reasonably found that Comber caused the death by shooting, the finding of murder was unreasonable because intent was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The only reasonable verdict on the evidence was manslaughter, and the conviction was accordingly reduced.
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. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books); The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing) and Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books). 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.