- Three men were convicted by a jury Friday for their roles in a deadly stabbing in a case that is likely headed for the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Glen Sherman Monkman was found guilty of second-degree murder, while co-accused Norris Ponce and Carlos Tavares were found guilty of manslaughter. All three had originally been charged with first-degree murder.
- Monkman faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for at least 10 years, while Ponce and Tavares have a much wider range of potential penalties. They will be sentenced March 4. The men then have 30 days to file an appeal of the case, which lawyers said Friday will likely be done.
- Jurors began deliberations Thursday afternoon and reached their verdict around 1 p.m. Friday.
- Ming Hong Huynh, 24, was knifed outside Club Desire on Bannatyne Avenue in April 2006. The main issue was whether jurors believed the evidence provided by Danny Simao, who claims he overheard a plan to kill Huynh while inside a car with the three accused.
- The verdicts of these men is contradictory. They believed Simao`s testimony for them to convict Tavares and Ponce, by believing that they were involved from what Simao claimed and that they drove the getaway SUV and threw the knife into the river.
- But they didn`t believe Simao`s testimony for the conviction of Monkman, because if they had, he would have been found guilty of first degree murder, since Simao claimed he was planning the killing in the SUV.
- You cannot believe one part of a witness`s testimony and not another part. He was completely unreliable and lacked credibility and should not have been believed at all.
- Simao lives in Ontario but was visiting his cousin, Tavares, and partying with the accused on the night of the fatal stabbing, court was told. He claims the three men discussed an attack on Huynh before the group's arrival outside Club Desire, and then dumped the murder weapon in a river after they fled the stabbing. No murder weapon was ever recovered. The Crown argued the accused planned the attack on Huynh as revenge for another stabbing that happened at a wedding social in March 2006.
- Monkman has admitted stabbing Huynh four times in the chest and cheek with a small knife while horrified bystanders watched but claims he should only be found guilty of manslaughter based on the fact he was provoked.
- Ponce was accused of distracting Huynh on the street before Monkman stabbed him. Tavares was accused of driving a getaway car, a cream-coloured Lincoln Navigator, away from the stabbing. Lawyers for both said there was no credible evidence linking them to the attack and they should be acquitted entirely.
- Defence lawyers said Simao has changed his story repeatedly about what he saw and heard the night of the stabbing. They say Simao's bizarre behaviour in court -- which included repeated bouts of vomiting and retching -- are a good indicator he was lying.
- "Someone who was providing honest and credible evidence wouldn't react like that," said Ponce`s lawyer Ian Garber
- Monkman's lawyer, Jeff Nichols, claims Simao is a "100 per cent untrustworthy" witness whose evidence should be rejected.
- Crown attorney Carla Dewar told jurors Simao's illness throughout more than two weeks of testimony is due to pre-existing health conditions, including irritable bowel syndrome and a bleeding ulcer. She claims the accused hatched a plan to hurt Huynh that was "executed perfectly.``
- Dewar said there are multiple sources of evidence to suggest the men were connected to the attack, like the Lincoln Navigator rented by Tavares and eyewitness accounts of the stabbing. Police later traced the Lincoln Navigator to a Selkirk Avenue garage, and forensic tests traced Monkman's blood to the inside of the vehicle.
- Before the attack, court heard Huynh was wandering around shirtless outside the club. His girlfriend testified Huynh used steroids and cocaine. The Red River College business administration student was intoxicated and looking to fight when he got into a fight with an Asian man alleged to be Ponce.
- Earlier in the night, he had been seen acting aggressively towards other people at the club and was intent on picking a fight with somebody.- Monkman claimed that he killed the victim because he was provoked by him, which is believable.
- I truly believe that Ponce and Tavares had nothing to do with the alleged planning of this killing and that they should not have been found guilty of manslaughter.
- Their should be a separate offence for parties to an offence, but I don`t feel they should have been guilty of manslaughter because neither of them killed anybody.
No comments:
Post a Comment