Citation: R. v. Wright, 2009 NSSC 192
Date: 20090612
Docket: CRH293164
Registry: Halifax
Between:
Her Majesty the Queen
v.
Cory Wright
Judge: The Honourable Justice Felix A. Cacchione
Heard: June 12, 2009, in Halifax, Nova Scotia
Written Decision: June 25, 2009
Counsel: Darrell Martin and Rick Woodburn, for the Crown
Warren K. Zimmer, for the defendant
By the Court:
[1] Cory Wright was originally charged with one count of second degree murder with respect to the death of Damon Crooks, which occurred on November 4th, 2006.
[2] The Agreed Statement of Facts sets out the events of that evening and I will not re-read that Agreed Statement of Facts other than to comment that it appears that this was, unfortunately, one of those street brawls that sometimes occurs when drinking establishments close for the day and the patrons who are intoxicated then wander off onto the city streets.
[3] Cory Wright is 26 years of age. He is single and has a Grade 12 education. He has entered a guilty plea to the lesser included offence of manslaughter. That plea has, to some degree, saved Mr. Crooks’ family from the agony of having to sit through a lengthy criminal proceeding. My understanding is that there were 50 odd witnesses on the Crown’s list.
[4] The guilty plea is also an acknowledgement of his involvement in this offence. The Pre-sentence Report shows that Mr. Wright was raised by his mother from a very young age. Although his parents separated when he was three years of age, it would appear that his home life was positive. There was no violence or substance abuse in the home and his mother has been supportive of him no matter what kind of trouble he has been involved in. That, to a large degree, sums up the emotions and the feelings of a mother.
[5] Mr. Wright was involved in a common law relationship. As a result, he has two children ages 3 and 2 years. He is described by his mother as caring and soft-hearted. She did not experience any issues with Mr. Wright regarding anger management or substance abuse. It is interesting that she did not discuss the offence with Mr. Wright.
[6] His uncle describes him as a good kid with no anger management issues and he believes that Mr. Wright allowed things to build up instead of dealing with his problems.
[7] He has been described by his common law spouse as an excellent father who provided for his kids and always took care of them. She described him, as well, as outgoing and smart and she never witnessed any problems regarding anger. She believes that he has low self-esteem and that he is self-conscious. His common law spouse indicates that Mr. Wright liked to play the bad guy and act tough, but that is really not his personality. She says that he was too loyal to friends, that he did not start the incident which led to Mr. Crooks’ death. She also indicates that his anger and violence was influenced by the friends that he kept.
[8] He has worked in the past as a labourer, painter, sales person and self-employed business owner. His manager, I would take it recording manager although it is not described as that, describes him as having a huge heart and deep thinker and highly ambitious and that he was someone who could relate with anyone he interacted with. Mr. Brow did note some anger issues and that Mr. Wright’s choice of associates was not really beneficial to him. He was shocked to hear of his involvement and blames it on going downtown with the wrong group of people who created a degree of tension. He indicates that Mr. Wright can do whatever he sets his mind to.
[9] Mr. Wright’s producer who has known him for seven years describes his personality as calm, quiet and not talkative. He says he is ambitious, non-aggressive and very talented. He has never witnessed any anger management or substance abuse issues. Apparently Mr. Wright did have some involvement with drugs and alcohol from a young age. His probation officer describes him as cooperative and able to communicate, accepting responsibility for his role in the offence and expressing remorse. Mr. Wright admitted to his probation officer that the offence was his fault and that he heightened the tense situation by introducing a knife into that situation. Mr. Wright says that he feels sorry that someone had to die in order for him to grow as a person. He expresses his belief that he will never re-offend again and will never carry a weapon again.
[10] Mr. Wright does have a prior record for violence. A record consisting of assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon and aggravated assault. Those are just some of the offences on his record.
[11] It is troubling to read the comment in the report that when presented with this prior record, Mr. Wright did not acknowledge a correlation between his record and anger management. It also would appear to me that the persons who provided information to the probation officer for preparation of this report perhaps do not know Mr. Wright as well as they believe they do.
[12] The death of Damon Crooks on November 4th, 2006 impacted on the lives of many persons, as attested to by the number of victim impact statements read into the record and submitted to the Court. His death has caused pain, anger, despair and it is has left a void in the hearts of his loved ones and others who knew him. Damon Crooks’ death has deprived his family, his friends, his fellow sailors of a young man who, by all accounts, was caring, considerate, peaceful and loving, a man who worked hard to achieve the success that he had gained and a man who was devoted to his family, his friends and his workmates. His loss, as was evidenced today by the various family members who read their statements, has been profound and immeasurable.
[13] It is particularly sad that the loss also affects the child Mr. Crooks never knew.
[14] Mr. Wright’s plea of guilty is an acceptance of his involvement in the death of Damon Austin Crooks. Hopefully, that acceptance, that plea of guilt should bring closure to the family of Mr. Crooks. The guilty plea has saved you from having to sit through a trial and listen to how your loved one died. Having reviewed the evidence in this case before the resolution conference, I can say to you with certainty that this case was not an open and shut case of either murder or manslaughter. The Crown acknowledged to me the difficulty that it would have had in attempting to prove the charge as originally laid, that is, murder in the second degree. And that difficulty was caused by numerous factors; uncooperative witnesses, witnesses most of them who were in some form or state of intoxication, witnesses who perhaps did not see what they stated that they saw, but rather were stating what others had told them.
[15] This is a tragedy and nothing that I can say, nothing that I can do will bring Damon back. You understand that. I just hope that you can move forward from today and that you can understand that, had it not been for Mr. Wright’s plea of guilty to manslaughter, it is quite possible that Mr. Crooks’ family would not have had any closure. I say this because of the quality of the evidence available to the prosecution and because of the fact that many of the participants and witnesses in this tragic event, this melee, were intoxicated either by alcohol or drugs. Intoxication affects memory. Intoxication affects the ability to communicate observations.
[16] I can tell you as someone who has sat here for the last more than two decades, I have presided over numerous murder trials. It is very possible that a jury hearing the evidence that the prosecution had available to it, could have concluded that either they could not decide who did what and hence either had been unable to reach a verdict, that is been hung as a jury, and if that had occurred the family would have had to sit through another trial. Or, the jury could in all likelihood have had a reasonable doubt that Mr. Wright was the offender who caused Damon Crooks’ death.
[17] I recognize that the sentence to be imposed is to some not to their liking. From what has been said by some of the victims, a life sentence without parole or execution would be more appropriate. However, our law does not include capital punishment and a sentence of life imprisonment is limited to certain specific offences, namely murder in the first or second degree.
[18] In this case, as I have already said, the charge of murder, either first or second degree, was not supported by the evidence available to the prosecution. The prosecution should not be faulted for accepting a plea to the lesser, but included offence of manslaughter, because the prosecution can only work with the evidence available to it. In this case the evidence of many witnesses was flawed because of the intoxication at the time of the event or because of a lack of precise observation of the events as they unfolded, or for a number of witnesses because they were uncooperative and did not want to assist the authorities.
[19] Mr. Wright, I have heard over the years a number of psychiatrists testify, some of them in dangerous offender proceedings, and they all come to the same conclusion and that conclusion is that past behaviour is the best prognosticator of future behaviour. Perhaps with the sentence to be imposed and the time that you will have to consider what you have done, not only in this case but in other offences where you were involved, that you can prove those psychiatrists wrong, that you can change the course of your life and that you can become a productive member of society.
[20] There has been a joint recommendation for a period of 15 years with respect of the offence of manslaughter, and I have indicated to counsel that I was prepared to accept that recommended sentence based on all of the facts which I have attempted to set out this morning.
[21] I am also bound to consider the time spent on remand by Mr. Wright prior to his sentence. As indicated by Mr. Martin for the prosecution, that amounts to a period of approximately two and a half years on remand which would, if one were to credit double time for remand, that would leave a global sentence of ten years.
[22] I am prepared to take into consideration the time spent on remand, but I am also mindful of society’s abhorrence of what occurred and the prevalence of these types of activities in our community. I am also aware of the need for society to denounce this type of behaviour.
[23] With respect to the sentence to be imposed, Mr. Wright if you would stand please. The sentence of this Court is that you be incarcerated in a federal institution for a period of 15 years. You will be credited with remand time of four years. Your total sentence will be 11 years. That is the global sentence you will have to serve.
[24] I am looking at s.743.6 and I am satisfied that having regard to the commission of the offence, your character and your circumstances that the expression of society’s denunciation of the offence and the objective of specific deterrence requires that you serve at least half that sentence before you are considered eligible for parole. That means, sir, that on the 11 year sentence you will have to serve five and a half years before you can even apply for parole.
[25] Mr. Wright I think that you have to take a very good look at yourself, what you have done, not blame others for where you find yourself and realize that the road you have chosen is a road that will lead you to Hell.
[26] The DNA and s.109 orders are granted.
_________________________
Cacchione, J.