A Guelph man’s attempted murder conviction has been overturned, with errors made by the trial judge cited as the reason.
In a decision released on Monday, the Ontario Court of Appeal ordered that Anthony Bruzzese be retried in relation to the 2018 stabbing of a man in a south Guelph Food Basics parking lot. Bruzzese was convicted of the attack in 2021 and sentenced to eight years in jail.
Bruzzese successfully argued his conviction should be overturned because of errors made by justice Gordon Lemon. Lemon told jurors to ignore the defense suggestion that a lack of the victim’s blood on Bruzzese’ clothing gives rise to reasonable doubt, and noted “conflicting” evidence about mutual cocaine use the night of the attack.
“The trial judge’s errors were material, went to the main pillars of the defense, and therefore could likely have affected the outcome of the trial,” states the appeal court ruling. “They created trial unfairness by undercutting the main thrust of the defense. The crown’s case was not overwhelming.”
Bruzzese was convicted of attempted murder in late 2021 stemming from a September, 2018 stabbing in the parking lot of a Food Basics store following an argument over cocaine.
As detailed in the appeal decision, Bruzzese met up with two people previously unknown to him at a bar that night, including the eventual victim. After the bar, the three went to the victim’s home and continued drinking.
The third person testified during trial that Bruzzese provided cocaine for the three of them and the victim angered Bruzzese by consuming the lion’s share, leading to death threats.
He told the court that later in the night Bruzzese had a knife in his hand and made two stabbing motions toward the victim’s stomach, after which the victim fell to the ground.
Surveillance video from a nearby store showed the appellant and third man left the parking lot and shook hands before they went separate ways.
A passerby later spotted the victim and called for help, saving his life.
The agreed facts during trial included that forensic evidence turned up blood on the third man’s shirt that could not be excluded as belonging to the victim, but no DNA was found on Bruzzese’s clothing.
During closing submissions, the defence suggested this was “strong evidence that Mr. Brussese was not the stabber.”
However, Lemon later told the jury it couldn’t infer doubt from the lack of DNA detected.
“It is a well-established principle that the absence of evidence may raise a reasonable doubt about the guilt of an accused or contribute to a conclusion by the trier of fact that the case for the Crown falls short of the standard of proof the law demands,” the appeal court decision states.
“The trial judge’s direction therefore undercut the defence by precluding the jury from considering this path to reasonable doubt based on the absence of evidence.”
During the trial, Dr. Leigh Bishop, chief of surgery at Guelph General Hospital, testified a toxicology screen test showed no cocaine was detected in the victim’s urine.
The defence later used this testimony to illustrate “dramatic contradictions” in evidence, namely the third man’s assertion that they’d used cocaine together that night didn’t match with the screening test results.
In closing statements, the Crown noted no evidence was presented about how long it takes cocaine to show up in a urine screening test and questioned the result.
Lemon repeated the claim in summarizing the Crown’s case to the jury before deliberations began and stated the third person’s testimony that the three of them did cocaine that night should be accepted and that the toxicology evidence shouldn’t discount that claim.
“The discrepancy between the toxicology report and (the third person’s) evidence was a major contradiction that should have been left to the jury as it could have seriously undermined (the third person’s) evidence and the Crown’s suggested motive for the stabbing,” the appeal court explained. “The Crown’s case depended almost entirely on (the third person’s) evidence. Without it, there was no connection between the appellant and the stabbing and there was no motive for the stabbing.
“As a result, the trial judge’s failure to correct Crown counsel’s submissions and his uncritical reiteration of the Crown’s argument that the toxicology report should not be used to discount (the third person’s) evidence when summarizing the Crown’s position were material legal errors that undermined the defence.”
No new trial date has been set.
