Joseph "Snowball" Laboucan awarded new trial

kimmy · January 7, 2009

The sensationalized rape and murder of 13 year old Nina Courtepatte is back in the headlines, as one of the gang convicted of the crime has had his conviction overturned.

Joseph "Snowball" Laboucan's conviction for 1st degree murder, kidnapping, and sexual assault has been overturned on the grounds that the judge erred in writing in his verdict that Laboucan was not a credible witness.

Nina Courtepatte was picked up by a group of 3 young men and 2 young women in spring, 2005, at West Edmonton Mall. She was invited by the group to join them at a "party" they were going to. The "party" turned out to be Courtepatte's rape and murder at a golf-course west of Edmonton. Courtepatte was raped by 2 of the men, choked with a wrench, stabbed with knives, and ultimately bludgeoned to death with a sledgehammer.

Those facts are all essentially uncontested. Members of the group have already confessed to all of that. Laboucan himself doesn't argue the basics of the crime.

Laboucan's defense was not "they got the wrong guy!" or any such thing. His defense, apparently, was that he didn't realize the "party" was a ruse. He thought they were actually going to a party, he claims. He also claims that once the violence began, he "went into shock" and was unable to stop what was going on.

I'm sure we can all relate to the sensation of being momentarily stunned or unable to act by the sight of something shocking. However, for that sensation to last for the duration of 2 rapes, a choking, knifings, and a sledgehammer beating, seems highly dubious. And indeed, Laboucan's cohorts testified that not only was he not in a state of shock, he was a ringleader of the violence.

Astoundingly, however, the Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled that the presiding judge acted improperly in writing in his ruling that he did not consider Laboucan's testimony to be credible.

Laboucan is also awaiting trial for the murder of an Edmonton prostitute.

-k

{some days, I really think about buying a blowtorch and pliers.}

AngusThermopyle · January 7, 2009

I remember this one, it was shocking, to the point where some of my co-workers were enraged upon hearing about it.

It's hard to believe that any sane Judge would overturn the conviction. What possible sane justification could they have for doing so and thus invalidating the justice system once more?

She was only thirteen and this shit bag partook willingly of the crime. Will they now "rehabilitate" this human garbage?

guyser · January 7, 2009

It's hard to believe that any sane Judge would overturn the conviction. What possible sane justification could they have for doing so and thus invalidating the justice system once more?

I am confused reading the article. At one point it says...

"The whole objection is that the trial judge started out from the assumption that the appellant was lying," wrote Justices Ron Berger and Frans Slatter.

But then it says he wrote it afterwards....

When he delivered his guilty verdict in the case, Justice Brian Burrows of Court of Queen's Bench wrote that he found Laboucan's testimony not credible.

So which is it?

If the judge started out with a prejudice, then appeal granted, as it was and reluctantly I have to agree.

If he wrote the note after, then the judge found fault with his credibility, and conviction should stand.

And no, he wont be rehabbed.

AngusThermopyle · January 7, 2009

And no, he wont be rehabbed.

Of course not, but the system will try.

I've just been involved in a court case involving a young person who is over 18. For armed robery and assault with a weapon (a hatchet) this young darling recieved 3 months house arrest followed by a three month curfew followed by 1 year probation. Keep in mind that they have 9 prior offenses and breaches of probation on their record and then keep a straight face when you tell me our justice system is just fine.

guyser · January 7, 2009

Of course not, but the system will try.

And why not? He wont be sentenced to anything less because of attempts to rehab him, so the system might as well help prepare for the day, 15 yrs hence when he may be asked to re-join society.

I've just been involved in a court case involving a young person who is over 18.Keep in mind that they have 9 prior offenses and breaches of probation on their record and then keep a straight face when you tell me our justice system is just fine.

Our justice system is just fine. And yes, that is with a straight face.

Does it need tweeking? Yes it does. Would I like to see some cases doled out with harsher penalties? Yes I would.

The overwhelming number of cases, and the institution of severe penalties occurs far more freguently than what some want to believe.

Every week I get a book sent to my house ( paralegal and lawyers get them) sent from the Upper Canada Law Society. It details the cases that should or did set precedent and lays out the transcripts of what occured. Very interesting reading to say the least, what the courts have to deal with.

One "fer instance" is the Jane Creba killing on Boxing Day at Yonge Street. The case file is hard to read since keeping all the players who were involved and who did what is very confusing. It seems one who "they" (police et al) thought pulled the trigger did not have the gun nor evidence he ever did. SO the court has to decide who did what and how it happened. We could blanket convict all who were there, but that is hardly justice now is it?

Riverwind · January 8, 2009

We could blanket convict all who were there, but that is hardly justice now is it?

Everyone who participated in the shoot out is equally guilty of the murder and it does not make a difference which gun the bullet came from. They should all face 1st degree murder charges even if they knew exactly who shot the killing bullet.

The idea that a participants in a mob are innocent as long as they did not land the 'killing blow' is a perversion of justice.

AngusThermopyle · January 8, 2009

Well in this particular case involving the young girl they are all certainly guilty. Its just my personal opinion but this is the sort of case that makes me question the wisdom of abolishing the death penalty. Also the supposed wisdom of parents who allow their children to run around at such a young age and thus encounter opportunities to go to "parties".

Thats just my opinion though.

guyser · January 8, 2009

Everyone who participated in the shoot out is equally guilty of the murder and it does not make a difference which gun the bullet came from.

Hardly justice then.

They should all face 1st degree murder charges even if they knew exactly who shot the killing bullet.

Ditto the above.

The idea that a participants in a mob are innocent as long as they did not land the 'killing blow' is a perversion of justice.

No has implied nor said the are innocent. But the problem lies in that the police are not sure who had a gun nor who fired one, and that is the crux of the crowns problem.

kimmy · January 8, 2009

Everyone who participated in the shoot out is equally guilty of the murder and it does not make a difference which gun the bullet came from.

Hardly justice then.

In the case of the trials for Jane Creba's murder, Riverwind appears to have it right:

Though J.S.R., who cannot be named due to his age at the time of the 2005 shootout that saw 15-year-old Creba killed and a number of others injured, did not fire the fatal bullet, the jury found that he participated in the exchange of gunfire that led to her death. They decided therefore that he was guilty in her murder.

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_29881.aspx

The idea that a participants in a mob are innocent as long as they did not land the 'killing blow' is a perversion of justice.

No has implied nor said the are innocent. But the problem lies in that the police are not sure who had a gun nor who fired one, and that is the crux of the crowns problem.

...and I think in the Courtepatte murder, it's about the same. It really doesn't matter which of the five who presided over her slaying was using the sledgehammer, which one was using the wrench, which one was using the knives, or which ultimately finished her off.

And Laboucan's defense does not appear to be trying to make that claim. His defense seems to be that he was not a participant in her slaying because he was too shocked to act, a claim disputed by his co-convictees.

I am unable to determine what legal error the judge actually made. Was the mistake in not trusting Laboucan's version of events, or was the mistake in writing down that he did not trust Laboucan's version of events? Clearly, given conflicting testimony, the judge had to come to a decision as to which was the more likely version of events... I can't understand the rationale for overturning the decision based on him deciding that Laboucan's version of events was not believable.

-k

guyser · January 8, 2009

I am unable to determine what legal error the judge actually made.

The article you had linked was contradicting . It led me to believe the appeal was based on bias before the trial,not after, but as clearly can be read, it alludes to an after the fact remark.

My guess is bias before the trial.