SA国际影视传媒

Skip to content

Fort Smith murder suspect was drunk, should be less accountable for actions, lawyer argues

2008homicider31
Brendan Burke/NNSL photo Wilfred Abraham, 54, covers his face as he enters a Yellowknife courthouse in handcuffs Thursday. Abraham has been charged with second-degree murder for the death of 48-year-old Ralph Sifton.
Brendan Burke/NNSL photo Wilfred Abraham, 54, covers his face as he enters a Yellowknife courthouse in handcuffs Thursday. Abraham has been charged with second-degree murder for the death of 48-year-old Ralph Sifton.
Wilfred Abraham, 54, covers his face as he enters a Yellowknife courthouse in handcuffs. Abraham has been charged with second-degree murder for the death of 48-year-old Ralph Sifton.
NNSL file photo

The judge-only murder trial for Wilfred Abraham came to a close Thursday as the NWT Supreme Court heard Crown and defence lawyersSA国际影视传媒 final submissions.

Abraham, 56, is accused of second-degree murder in connection with Ralph SiftonSA国际影视传媒檚 death in Fort Smith two years ago.

In August 2018, Abraham assaulted Sifton in a backyard near the Fort Smith menSA国际影视传媒檚 shelter in an attack that rendered him unconscious and ultimately killed him. 

The subject of the trial is whether Abraham intended to kill Sifton, and if charges of second-degree murder or of manslaughter are appropriate as a result. 

Second-degree murder generally has a sentencing range of 10-25 years in custody. The appropriate range for manslaughter is much greater as cases of manslaughter range from near accident to near murder and rely heavily on the circumstances. 

Defence lawyer Austin Corbett argued that Abraham did not intend to kill Sifton and should therefore be charged with the lesser crime of manslaughter. 

He said that due to AbrahamSA国际影视传媒檚 level of intoxication, he was unable to properly process consequences and was therefore unaware of the extent of his actions. 

The court heard Tuesday from forensic psychiatrist Dr. Marc Nesca, who explained the ways that cognitive function becomes impaired with alcohol. In NescaSA国际影视传媒檚 testimony, Corbett says he explained that under the influence of alcohol the brainSA国际影视传媒檚 control process and executive function are reduced. The court heard that an intoxicated person cannot properly anticipate consequences and therefore is no longer making the same decisions that they would when sober.  

As a result, Corbett says SA国际影视传媒渢he science backs up that we should have an intoxication defenceSA国际影视传媒 since SA国际影视传媒渋ntoxication equates automatism.SA国际影视传媒

Corbett pointed to a number of community testimonies indicating that Abraham had been drinking all day prior to the assault. The court heard that he was swerving on his bike, yelling in the street and unable to walk in a straight line, demonstrating severe alcoholic impairment. 

Corbett also identified events from earlier that day as a provocative. Hours prior to the assault, Abraham had been sleeping on a couch in the same backyard where the assault later occurred SA国际影视传媒 a common occurrence as the yard is near the menSA国际影视传媒檚 shelter SA国际影视传媒 when Sifton, wearing steel-toed boots, kicked him in the face. 

Crown Prosecutor Morgan Fane says this is a motive. 

After being kicked in the face, Abraham went to the shelter to retrieve a pair of shoes. When a shelter employee asked about the bruises forming on his face, Abraham apparently said he had been SA国际影视传媒渇ighting with Ralph.SA国际影视传媒

Abraham then returned to the yard to find Sifton on the couch and began attacking him. Fane says Abraham meant to kill the victim because during the attack, and after the fact, he repeatedly said that he did. 

Throughout the three-week trial, witnesses to the attack testified that they heard Abraham yell, SA国际影视传媒淚SA国际影视传媒檓 going to kill himSA国际影视传媒 a number of times.  

Abraham also apparently told the police responding to a neighbour's 911 call that he SA国际影视传媒渨anted to kill him.SA国际影视传媒

SA国际影视传媒淚 was going to disable him; he had no right to kick me,SA国际影视传媒 he apparently said. SA国际影视传媒淗e kicked me in the head. What am I to do? What am I to do? What am I to do?SA国际影视传媒

Fane argues that while it would appear Abraham was drunk, he had the cognitive ability to tell the shelter worker he got into a fight with Sifton and to respond to police instructions. 

Fane highlights the way Abraham takes off his shoes and socks for police using his right foot and big toe to remove his left sock and vice versa for the other side. This suggests functioning motor skills and a level of maintaining his faculties, Fane said. 

SA国际影视传媒淒id he have anything other than murder in his heart?SA国际影视传媒 Fane asked the court rhetorically. SA国际影视传媒淚 suggest the answer is that he did not.SA国际影视传媒

Justice Andrew Mahar is scheduled to render his decision on Oct. 15. 

He thanked both the Crown and defence for SA国际影视传媒渆xcellent submissions.SA国际影视传媒

SA国际影视传媒淚 have a lot to think about,SA国际影视传媒 Mahar said.





(or

SA国际影视传媒

) document.head.appendChild(flippScript); window.flippxp = window.flippxp || {run: []}; window.flippxp.run.push(function() { window.flippxp.registerSlot("#flipp-ux-slot-ssdaw212", "Black Press Media Standard", 1281409, [312035]); }); }