Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Table of Contents Cormier With Charge
Table of Contents Cormier With Charge
- and -
RAYMOND JOSEPH CORMIER,
Accused.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1
IRRELEVANCE OF PUNISHMENT 8
FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS 10
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE 14
BURDEN OF PROOF 15
REASONABLE DOUBT 16
ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE 18
EVIDENCE DEFINED 22
EXHIBITS 29
MOTIVE 104
Accused.
INTRODUCTION
You will soon leave this courtroom and start discussing this
case in your jury room. It is now time for me to tell you about
the law you must follow in making your decision.
First, I will explain your duties as jurors, and tell you about
the general rules of law that apply to all jury cases.
Then, I will discuss the issues that you need to decide and
then review for you some of the evidence that relates to those
issues. By doing this, I hope I can help you recall the evidence
and understand how it relates to the issues that you will be asked
to decide. You must always keep in mind, however, that to
decide this case, you rely on what you remember the evidence
was, not what counsel or I say it was.
Finally, I will explain what verdicts you may return and how
you should approach your discussion of the case in your jury
room.
Your second duty is to accept all the rules of law that I tell
you apply in this case. Even if you disagree with or do not
understand the reasons for the law, you are required to follow
what I say about it. You are not allowed to pick and choose
amongst my instructions on the law. You must not consult other
sources or substitute your own views.
If I make a mistake about the law, justice can still be done
in this case. The court clerk/monitor records everything I say.
The Court of Appeal can correct my mistakes. But justice will not
be done if you wrongly apply the law. Your decisions are secret.
You do not give reasons. No one keeps a record of your
discussions for the Court of Appeal to review. As a result, it is
very important that you accept the law from me and follow it
without question.
Each of you has to decide the case for yourself. You should
only do so, however, after you have considered the evidence
with your fellow jurors and applied the law that I have explained
to you.
FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
BURDEN OF PROOF
If, at the end of the case, after considering all the evidence,
you are sure that Raymond Cormier committed the offence, you
should find Raymond Cormier guilty of it, since you would have
been satisfied of his guilt of that offence beyond a reasonable
doubt.
If, at the end of the case, based on all of the evidence or the
lack of evidence, you are not sure that Raymond Cormier
committed the offence charged, you should find him not guilty.
Did the witness seem honest? Is there any reason why the
witness would not be telling the truth?
Did the witness have an interest in the outcome of the case,
or any reason to give evidence that is more favourable to one
side than to the other?
These are only some of the factors that you might keep in
mind when you go to your jury room to make your decision.
These factors might help you decide how much or little you will
believe of and rely upon a witness’ evidence. You may consider
other factors as well.
EVIDENCE DEFINED
To decide what the facts are in this case, you must consider
only the evidence that you saw and heard in the courtroom.
Consider all the evidence in reaching your decision.
The charge that you heard read out when we started this
case is not evidence. What the lawyers and I said when we spoke
to you during the trial, including what I am saying to you now, is
not evidence. Only the exhibits and the things witnesses say are
evidence.
In this case, Dr. Rhee was called to give his opinion on the
cause and manner of death. He was also called to give his
opinion on the time that may have elapsed between the
discovery of Tina Fontaine and the time of death. Dr. Rhee
testified that in examining and observing the body at the
autopsy, it was his rough estimate that by the time the body was
found, Tina Fontaine would have been dead for three to seven
days. In saying three to seven days, Dr. Rhee qualified that
opinion saying that the time could have been as low as just under
three days or as high as eight or nine days.
Dr. Rhee told you that there was no evidence of any drug
at a level such that a person would likely self-smother. There
was similarly no evidence of a weakened or compromised
cardiovascular system or kidney disorder.
You also heard evidence from Constable Susan Roy-
Hageman of the Winnipeg Police Service. Although not
technically presented as an expert, based on her years of
experience and training as a forensic identification specialist, she
explained to you how in this case, like others, a specialist like
herself, gets involved in respect of the crime scene investigation
for the purpose of gathering forensically significant evidence
that might link a victim and an offender with the scene.
Constable Roy-Hageman described this case as a unique case
with no crime scene per se, only a submerged body in connection
to which, water and decomposition had affected the ability to
find trace evidence. She testified that there was, in this case, no
forensic or trace evidence to link the accused to the duvet, the
body or the truck. Constable Roy-Hageman also noted that there
was no forensic evidence linking other suspects to Tina
Fontaine’s body, duvet or the truck in question.
The evidence that you heard from Dr. Wilkie Gilmore was
given pursuant to her expertise in emergency medicine in
respect of which, she was permitted to give opinion evidence
concerning the hospital records and lab work conducted in
relation to Tina Fontaine.
Constable Carrette, who was presented as an expert in
fingerprint analysis, also provided his opinion.
To the extent that the facts you find are different from the
facts assumed or relied upon by the expert in reaching his or her
conclusion, you may consider the expert’s opinion less helpful to
you in deciding this case. How much or how little you believe of
or rely upon an expert’s opinion, is entirely up to you.
If you find that a witness said one thing in the witness box
and something different about the same subject on an earlier
occasion, this may factor in assessing the witness’ credibility. It
is for you to determine what any difference will have on your
overall assessment of the witness’ credibility. It may have a huge
effect, or no effect, or somewhere in between. Not every
difference or inconsistency is important. Consider the extent
and nature of any difference. Was it on a central point or
something peripheral? Consider the explanation the witness
gave. Was the explanation satisfactory?
During the trial, you heard audio recordings from body pak
and probe intercepts. The intercept recordings were obtained in
the context of a six-month undercover sting that was Project
STYX. Some of those recordings were the result of interactions
as between the accused and undercover officers. Those
interactions with either of the two undercover officers usually
involve body pak interceptions. The other recordings you heard
were as a result of those intercepts picked up on a “probe” which
had been placed in Mr. Cormier’s apartment. Many of those
interceptions involved Mr. Cormier talking to other identified or
unknown participants.
While you may rely on other evidence heard during the trial
to give meaning to the words that you hear in the recordings,
you must not use other evidence to fill in or guess at inaudible
portions of the recording.
THE OUT-OF-COURT COMMENTS, THE POLICE VIDEO
STATEMENT AND THE BODY PAK AND PROBE INTERCEPTIONS
OF RAYMOND CORMIER
Later that same day, after Tina Fontaine had left her
bedroom, Sarah Holland heard yelling and screaming in a back
alley. She heard Tina Fontaine say she “was going to call the
cops.” During this yelling and screaming, Sarah Holland also
heard Raymond Cormier’s voice and at some point heard the
word “river”. Sarah Holland did not testify as to what, if
anything, she heard Raymond Cormier saying, indicating only
that in the context of this yelling and screaming, Raymond
Cormier’s voice was loud but not as loud as Tina Fontaine’s.
Sarah Holland testified that after this incident of what she
described was two or three minutes of yelling and screaming in
the alley, Raymond Cormier came back to the house, appeared
angry and at some point asked twice, “Do you really think she
will call the police?”
Sarah Holland also testified that following the few days she
spent with Ernest DeWolfe at the hotel in August, she went back
to 22 Carmen where she found Raymond Cormier, Tyrell
Morrison and Tyrell Morrison’s cousin, Jay. Prior to arriving at
22 Carmen, Ernest DeWolfe and Sarah Holland had both seen
news of Tina Fontaine and her picture in the paper. Sarah
Holland testified that when she got back to 22 Carmen that day,
she mentioned the news of Tina Fontaine to see the reaction.
She testified that she advised them that “she was found in the
river.” Sarah Holland testified that she asked “Frenchie”, the
accused Cormier, did he do it? In her direct examination at trial,
Sarah Holland said that Frenchie responded by saying, “no” but
according to Sarah Holland, he did not seem too concerned. It
should be noted that, in cross-examination, Sarah Holland
acknowledged telling the police in an earlier statement that
when she advised Raymond Cormier of Tina Fontaine’s death
and discovery in the river, his reaction was surprise, and he
stated “this shouldn’t have happened.” Sarah Holland also
acknowledged that as part of his reaction, Raymond Cormier
stated that “she was a good kid” and that he “felt bad”.
You may give anything you find the accused said as much or
as little importance as you think it deserves in deciding this case.
It is for you to say. Anything you find the accused said, however,
is only part of the evidence in this case. You should consider it
along with and in the same way as all of the other evidence.
Let me now turn to the video police statement of Raymond
Cormier marked as Exhibit 36 with the accompanying transcript
marked as Exhibit 37.
First, the Crown points to the fact that Mr. Cormier ran from
22 Carmen on October 1, 2014 when the police attended to
question Sarah Holland about Tina Fontaine’s murder. A brief
foot chase ensued. The Crown argues that Mr. Cormier did not
run because of what he, Mr. Cormier called “Mickey Mouse
warrants”, but rather, because he was the murderer of Tina
Fontaine.
The second “after the fact” act that the Crown identifies as
worthy of your consideration relates to the fact that Mr. Cormier
repeatedly told the police in his video police statement on
October 1, 2014, that he did not steal the blue truck or the tools.
The Crown says that Mr. Cormier is slow to admit he had a truck
at all and he denied it was stolen. Mr. Cormier also said it was
black. He never admits that he had stolen tools. The Crown
argues that despite being repeatedly told that he would not be
charged for having a stolen truck or stolen tools, he continued to
lie saying he was “baffled” by the claim of the stolen tools, and
further, that he had never had a stolen vehicle in Winnipeg. Mr.
Cormier said he had a truck but it was black. He said the truck
he had was not stolen. The Crown says that these assertions by
Mr. Cormier were not just misleading and false, they were
intentional lies, intentional falsehoods. It is part of the Crown’s
theory that Mr. Cormier told these lies out of fear hoping that
police would not be led to find the truck because someone may
have seen the truck when he disposed of the body, or because
Mr. Cormier was fearful that evidence which may have remained
in the truck, would be found.
When considering whether the evidence of Mr. Cormier’s
running away from the police when they arrived at 22 Carmen
on October 1, 2014 and whether what the Crown alleges were
the lies about the truck and the tools in the police video
statement can be used to help you decide whether it was Mr.
Cormier who committed the offence charged, you must keep in
mind the instruction I am about to give you.
You have heard evidence that Mr. Cormier may have made
false or misleading statements after the alleged offence about
the stolen truck and the tools. Keep in mind however, that not
every falsehood is a lie. A lie is an intentional falsehood. You
may disbelieve a person’s statement without concluding that the
statement was a deliberate lie. You should look for independent
evidence of lying before using this evidence to support a finding
of guilt. Unless you conclude that the false or misleading
statements about the truck and the tools that the Crown
identifies were in fact lies, you must not use them to infer guilt.
In this case, the Crown suggests that the following
independent evidence constitutes evidence which establishes
that Cormier’s comments in his video police statement should be
seen as not only false or misleading statements, but lies. The
Crown suggests they are lies for the following reasons:
MOTIVE
In this case, the Crown says that the motive of Mr. Cormier
to kill Tina Fontaine was to silence her in reaction to both her
threat to call the police and her subsequent call to them. The
Crown contends that Mr. Cormier had several things to hide, the
stolen truck, sexual advances to and relations with a child, and
the fact that he would have at times provided drugs to her.
The Crown says that the death of Tina Fontaine was caused
by an assaultive act such as smothering which did not leave
evident injury or by an act such as submersion into the river
while unconscious but alive. If you determine, based on all of
the evidence, that Tina Fontaine’s death was caused either by an
assaultive suffocation or by submersion in the river while she
was unconscious but alive, thereby leading to her drowning, you
should have no difficulty determining that either of those acts
were unlawful.
You will recall from the evidence of those who heard the
argument in the alley, Tina Fontaine’s threat to report Raymond
Cormier to the police. It was Sarah Holland who testified that
shortly after that argument concluded, Raymond Cormier came
back into the house asking Sarah Holland whether she believed
Tina Fontaine would really call the police. In considering the
evidence concerning Tina Fontaine’s threat to call the police, you
may also wish to consider the evidence of Ernest DeWolfe
wherein he told you about his conversation on August 15, 2014,
with Raymond Cormier and Cormier’s comment to him to not
worry about Tina Fontaine going to the police because he “took
care of it.”
Defence Position
The defence says that you should believe Mr. Cormier with
respect to his denials in the involvement of the death of Tina
Fontaine. The defence points to Mr. Cormier’s consistent denials
in his warned statement and his evidence regarding how he first
met Ms. Fontaine as well as how she left his company on
August 6, 2014. The defence further says that the reasonable
interpretation of the audio recordings of Mr. Cormier from
Project STYX supports Mr. Cormier’s innocence. The defence
points to his repeated comments to third-party individuals as
well as undercover officers that he was not involved in Ms.
Fontaine’s death, that he wants to find her killer, and that regrets
what he told her the last time he saw her. The defence suggests
that all of this combined, should lead you to accept his position
that he was not involved in Ms. Fontaine’s death. Accordingly,
the defence says that you should acquit Mr. Cormier. It is the
defence’s position that even if you do not completely believe Mr.
Cormier in his denials, his denials should raise reasonable doubt.
In the event that you do not believe Mr. Cormier and his
denials do not leave you with doubt, the defence submits that
the Crown has not met its burden of proof beyond reasonable
doubt with respect to the first question of whether or not Ms.
Fontaine’s death was caused by an unlawful act. The defence
says that based on the evidence of the forensic pathologist and
the toxicologist, there are two reasonable, alternate possibilities
for the cause of Ms. Fontaine’s death. These would be an
overdose by combination of gabapentin and alcohol, or
alternatively, death by self-smothering. The defence argues that
these possibilities are supported by the evidence from the
pathologist and toxicologist. The defence says that these
possibilities are more than mere speculation and are reasonable
when you consider the evidence as a whole, including Ms.
Fontaine’s self-admitted and observed use of alcohol and illicit
drugs. Accordingly, the defence says on this first question, you
should acquit Mr. Cormier.
Included in the things that will go with you to the jury room
is a verdict sheet. On this sheet, I have listed the verdicts that
you may reach in this case. There is no significance to the order
in which the verdicts are listed.
The evidence and the issues raised in this case leave two
verdicts for you to consider:
Not guilty
or
RETURN OF VERDICT
When we began this trial, I told you that you could take
notes to help you remember what any witness said in testifying
here. Some of you have done so. You may take your notes with
you to the jury room for your use during your deliberations.
Your notes are not evidence, any more than the notes that
I make or the lawyers make are evidence. The only purpose for
which you may use your notes during your deliberations is to
help you remember what a witness said or showed, for example,
on an exhibit.
It is also important to remember that the notes are those of
the note-taker, not someone else. They may or may not coincide
with other jurors’ memories of the evidence.
Jurors are not advocates who have a duty, like the lawyers
here, to argue the case for the Crown or for the defence, as the
case may be. Jurors are judges of the facts. If you approach your
deliberations calmly, putting forward your own views and
listening carefully to what others have to say, you will be able to
reach a just and proper verdict.
Please note, ladies and gentlemen, that while I said you will
be able to access all of the exhibits in the jury room, the exhibits
never include a bound volume of the recorded transcript of the
trial. Although I don’t expect this request having to be made, if
required, it is possible to audibly review, where necessary,
whatever portions of the evidence you identify.
FINAL REMARKS