The offence here was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown called unreliable witnesses who gave evidence that should be weighted accordingly. Wire taps that were provided undermine the Crown’s witnesses. The Crown asks you the jury to infer more than is fair, to fill in the gaps in their case. They have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this child had the intent necessary for a first-degree murder conviction. But keep in mind that not here to prove the innocence of Mr. Pellerin Jr.; you’re here to administer justice fairly, come what may.

The Crown in this case wants you to find that Mr. Pellerin Jr. planned a killing and deliberately acted to kill. The Crown’s case effectively relies on testimony alone to do this. Where that testimony falls short of being a reliable proof, there is reasonable doubt.

Tommy Pellerin Jr. is 14 years old.

You know that there was a security camera overlooking the parking lot. But it was broken. You know that there are two lights covering parts of the parking lot, but that one is broken and the other does not cover the whole lot. It is fair to say the parking lot was not well lit that night. It is fair to say that they have shown enough to prove this young man was there that night. But the Crown takes this as evidence of much more. The Crown suggests that Mr. Pellerin Jr. mistook one person for another, planting a bomb at the wrong time, without anything else to support their conclusion.

This brings us to the heart of the Crown’s case. You heard testimony which said Mr. Pellerin Jr. was carrying a backpack around the night of the incident. This evidence came to you from Melanie Surette. According to Ms. Surette, Mr. Pellerin Jr. was in and out of the Chris Rock that night, and the backpack he was carrying appeared later in the night, just before the explosion. This, the Crown argues, is enough to conclude that Mr. Pellerin Sr. found a bomb, gave it to his son, instructed his son to plant it elsewhere, and then his son did so and blew up Mr. Benoit’s car. The trouble with their case is this: even if all that were true, it still wouldn’t be enough to prove first-degree murder. This young man, Mr. Pellerin Jr., did not plan ahead and there is no proof that he had anything planned.

The Crown’s case might be plausible, if their witnesses had provided honest, reliable testimony. Credibility, inconsistency, and weight: these are the areas the Crown’s case falls apart. Ms. Surette and Mr. Benoit showed their true colours in phone conversations that you have as evidence. The wire taps show that the witnesses were dishonest in their statements to police, coming up with a scapegoat and a story to tell when they doubled back to supplement their faulty statements.

During cross examination, Ms. Surette failed to remember important details from that night. That, along with the wire taps, shows that she was struggling to hold up a lie she’d crafted with Mr. Benoit. This is not reliable evidence, and when making your decision, you should weight it accordingly. The witnesses lost all credibility when their wire taps were put into evidence. (Ms. Surette, the Crown’s star witness, saying “[w]ell, I could say he went in and out a couple of times. Let’s try to shift the blame onto him”.)

You must consider what parts of the offence their testimony really reliably prove to you. They didn’t prove that the fight was orchestrated to get somebody in that car at 10PM. They certainly did not prove that Tommy Jr. had the necessary specific intent, that he had this all planned out. They have given you circumstantial evidence via witnesses lacking credibility, and asked you to impute the necessary intent for first degree murder onto this 14 year old boy. If you give the Crown’s evidence a proper weight in your figuring, you’ll find that they ask too much of you.

Mr. Pellerin Jr. was there that night, going in and out of the bar. He had a backpack at one point. That is all the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. The witnesses for the prosecution gave testimony which unravels when the wire taps are considered. Ms. Surette and Mr. Benoit were looking to scapegoat Mr. Pellerin Jr., and lied in their statements to police. The Crown thinks the young man before you is a criminal mastermind. The question for you, now, is whether the Crown really proved that this 14-year-old boy had the specific intent required for first-degree murder.