Man granted new trial in Courtepatte murder
EDMONTON — The mother of a 13-year-old girl Edmonton girl who was raped and bludgeoned to death cried in anguish Tuesday at word that a man convicted of the crime has been granted a new trial.
Peacha Atkinson said she can’t believe that the Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled that Joseph Laboucan will again face charges of first-degree murder, kidnapping and sexual assault in the death of her daughter Nina Courtepatte.
“We will be reliving a nightmare,” Atkinson said. “Instead of doing this, we should be focusing on us properly grieving, because we haven’t done that yet.”
In a 2-1 decision, the appeal court ruled that the trial judge was wrong to say that Laboucan, now 23, was not a credible witness about what happened on the night of April 3, 2005, when Nina was killed.
“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.
Laboucan was one of five people who were charged in the grisly case, in which Nina was sexually assaulted and bludgeoned to death with a sledge hammer on a golf course.
During his trial, Laboucan testified that he was present, but not involved in luring the girl from West Edmonton Mall with the promise of a party.
He said he was simply a bystander when Nina was attacked — testimony that was refuted by other witnesses.
Laboucan also testified that he went into a state of shock when Nina was attacked and was unable to respond to the violence.
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.
“I have concluded that I don’t believe Mr. Laboucan. My reasons for this conclusion are the fact that he has a very great motive to be untruthful given the consequences of being convicted of the offences charged.”
Alberta Justice spokesman David Dear said the Crown will carefully review Tuesday’s judgment and may appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada.
“We presented a solid case to the Court of Appeal and the decision to order a retrial is different from what we would have hoped,” Dear said.
“The court’s decision was not unanimous though and that means we have an automatic right to a Supreme Court appeal.”
In her dissenting reasons for judgment, Justice Patricia Rowbotham wrote that she found no error in law by Burrows.
No date for Laboucan’s retrial has been set.
Atkinson said she can only hope that Alberta will successfully appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court and spare her family the pain of sitting through another long trial.
“I hope they do appeal it because it will be part of our suffering ending,” she said.
“I hope when it goes to the Supreme Court that they really, really look at it ... and say, 'Why is this family going through pain and torture over and over and over again?'”
COMMENTS
Let's keep comments:
We ask that all participants own their words by logging in with their Facebook account. It's a simple process that will take seconds and helps keep our comments free of trolls, cranks, and “drive-by” commenters.
We reserve the right to remove comments from anyone using screen names, pseudonyms or false identities. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.