A jury will continue deliberations in the second degree murder trial of 56-year-old Raymond Cormier Thursday morning.
Following more than three hours of instructions from Court of Queen's Bench Chief Justice Glenn Joyal, the four men and seven women jurors began discussing evidence at 4 p.m. Wednesday in the case, evidence they'll have to weigh to determine the outcome of the trial.
Joyal instructed jurors they must follow what he says about the law but it's their job to determine the facts in the case to decide if the Crown has proven Cormier is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of second degree murder in the death of Tina Fontaine.
"You must be unanimous, but you don't have to come to your conclusions using the same reasoning,” Joyal explained to jurors.
"Raymond Cormier is presumed innocent unless or until Crown counsel has proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
Fontaine's body was discovered in the Red River in August 2014 wrapped in a duvet, weighed down with rocks.
The Crown has argued Fontaine's death was caused by smothering or by being placed in the river while she was still alive.
Cormier's lawyers said he should be acquitted because the Crown hasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt Fontaine’s death was caused by an unlawful act.
Joyal told the 11-member jury the particular circumstances of this case require they answer two key questions:
"Was Tina Fontaine's death caused by an unlawful act?"
"Did Raymond Cormier commit the unlawful act?”
The Crown has argued statements made by Cormier to people in his apartment during secret audio recordings obtained by police through a covert operation amount to a confession of murder.
The defence argued Cormier's statements only show he cared for Fontaine and felt guilty he didn't do more to prevent her death.
There can be one of only two outcomes in the trial: Joyal told the jury they can return with a verdict of not guilty, or a verdict of guilty of second degree murder.
No verdict was reached Wednesday night.
Chief Justice struck down defence motion to toss case
The jury was excused last week during a motion made by defence lawyers for a directed verdict.
They wanted the case tossed due to a lack of evidence.
Andrew Synyshyn expressed concerns no cause of death is known and that it’s not even known for certain where -- in the city or outside Winnipeg – Fontaine’s death occurred.
“So little is known,” said Synyshyn. “I don’t think there’s any evidence…we don’t know where she met her end, unfortunately.”
“You have an inference that nobody wanted the body to be found.”
The Crown argued there is evidence in the form of an admission of an unlawful act from the accused regarding concealment of the body.
“This is a circumstantial case, I say it’s a good one, coupled with admissions of an unlawful act in the intercepts,” said Crown attorney James Ross.
Joyal struck down the defence motion.
He told court circumstantial cases by definition rely on the drawing inferences and when you couple the circumstantial evidence with direct evidence Joyal ruled: “This is a case where it is possible to say there is evidence with which a reasonably instructed jury could convict.”
