Not guilty verdict in teen sex assault trial

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 31/08/2024 (279 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A story of a summer night spent looking at the stars and talking about their young lives by the ball diamond in Ste Anne diverged for two young teens as that night drew to a close, ending in a Steinbach courtroom Aug. 23.

Questions of consent and what really happened after testimony from four witnesses including the then 13-year-old alleged female victim and then 15-year-old male accused left senior provincial Judge Robert Heinrichs feeling like he had no choice but to issue a not guilty verdict in the sex assault trial.

“”I really don’t know what happened, and that means I find [the accused] not guilty,” said the judge at the conclusion of a day-long trial.

Both teenagers cannot be named.

It all started as many things do for teenagers in 2023, on social media.

The boy was added to a Snapchat group, where the girl and her friends would send messages to each other. Soon after, the boy and girl started a separate direct message thread to chat more privately.

The boy and girl did not know each other, having attended different schools in the small town. But both testified that this private chat led to flirting, with the boy insisting he was told she was the same age as him.

The boy also said the two had met the week before and that the girl had asked to hang out. The girl testified that the Aug. 14, 2023 meeting at the ball park was the first time they met in person, a couple weeks after first meeting online.

But the description of what happened at the park was very similar from both up to the point of the alleged assault.

He was waiting, and after some uncertainty about meeting him, she and about seven of her friends eventually showed up around 9:30 p.m. A couple friends of hers tried riding his ATV. She and her girlfriends kept a short distance and did not really chat that much with the boy.

Then the friends decided to leave. One girlfriend warned the boy by either saying “don’t touch her” (girl’s version) or “don’t rape her” (boy’s version).

The girl stayed, wanting to get to know him better. They sat and chatted about — as the girl testified — themselves, their lives and their parents.

He suggested they lay on the ground behind the bleachers to look up the stars. Both testified she laid her head on his shoulder as they continued to talk.

Her version

That is when the girl said things took a bad turn. Though it was just a pack of gum, the girl said in a soft voice during Crown’s questioning that she decided to leave when she thought the boy took a wrapped condom out of his pocket.

She told the court that the boy said it was not a fun thing to leave, and that he touched her backside before knocking her down with his leg. She described him using the bleachers to balance himself because his other leg was fractured and in a medical boot.

She said she gave obvious hints that she did not want to engage physically to the boy who was on top of her and holding her arms hard enough to leave a bruise on one of them. She also said he unclasped her bra and left hickeys, all without consent.

Afraid because of his larger size, she said she then did not move much as she was afraid of how he would react. She said she was close to crying.

He moved against her and she said left a stain on her jean shorts. Both said no clothing was ever removed.

She testified that he then left on his quad without saying a word or even looking at her, and she walked home.

She hugged her mom, then went upstairs to change clothes and call a friend. She said she was not sure if what happened counted as assault. She also got on social media and blocked the boy from being able to contact her or see her posts.

After talking to her friend, she came down to tell her mom, who quickly brought her to the Ste Anne Police station.

In cross examination, her voice became stronger when the defence suggested she already had the bruise on her arm, and asked her why her police statement did not have all the details her testimony did.

“I was 13,” stated the girl.

His version

The boy admitted to trying to advance things physically with the girl. He testified that when he leaned in for a kiss, she responded positively and took control of the situation by getting on top of him.

He admitted to touching, but said she reacted positively when challenged by the Crown if she ever told him he could and suggested he never obtained consent.

He said they were about two metres from the bleachers, too far for him to reach especially with his injured leg, and that he never knocked her down, he never held her down, he was never on top of her, and she did not try to leave until the end of the evening together.

He said it was after about 20 minutes when she decided to end things and leave. He said he offered her a ride on his quad and she accepted, but being afraid of her mother’s reaction asked that he drop her off a ways from her home.

He tried to message her that night on social media, but saw that she had already blocked him. Ste Anne Police came to arrest him the next day and he went with his dad to give a statement, and was released with the condition to not contact her.

Mom’s version

The girl’s mother presented emotional testimony about what happened when the girl returned home.

She said when the girl came downstairs to tell her, she knew something was seriously wrong. That was also the impression from the Ste Anne police officer who took their statements.

But the mother’s statement was used in cross examination by the defence, who pointed out that the mom told police that the boy had a reputation. Having testified that she had never met the boy and did not know about him, the mother eventually admitted that friends of the girl’s came to their house before the visit to the police station and told the mom that they knew the boy well and why they did not like him.

The girl also had a friend who dated the boy for a year and felt very negative feelings towards him, though there was no specific reason given why. The defence tried suggesting this may be why the friends reached out to the boy in the first place, to try to get him in trouble, but the Crown pointed out that was a stretch without direct evidence and the judge did not acknowledge that during his verdict.

Burden of proof

The judge explained that the burden of proof on credibility when there is conflicting testimony is on the Crown, as there is a presumption of innocence for any criminally accused. He decided any of the physical evidence presented was not relevant for the defence or Crown.

No male human DNA was found where the stain was on the shorts. Some was found on the back, where the boy admitted to touching, but none was positively identified as semen.

Judge Heinrichs also pointed to the changes or additions in the description of what happened by the girl when compared to the statement given to the Ste Anne Police officer who testified. She said that she went quickly to the police so that she could remember as many details as possible, but that over time new details surfaced in her memory that she thought were important, like the reason she first started to leave being she thought he pulled out a condom but it was gum.

The judge compared it to the version from the accused boy’s.

“So which evidence do I actually believe in what she said?

“And that’s troubling because here we have someone who’s testified and given a pretty consistent story of what happened and that this was a consent thing, and that he even drove her home.

“And then we have [the alleged victim] who’s saying, well, this is the way it happened, that’s what I told the police. And then a year later there’s a lot of things that are different.”

The judge also agreed with defence attorney Stephen Legault’s point in his closing argument that the girl’s change in demeanour when answering his questions versus the Crown’s should be considered. The Crown unsuccessfully argued it was a way anyone in that situation may react.

“Combine that with the fact that this was a very teary-eyed teenager testifying in direct. And her demeanour definitely did change in cross examination. It’s easy to say because yeah, Mr. Legault had a great cross examination and she was now feeling comfortable or threatened, or whatever, but there’s something more that seemed to be going on because she was almost getting hostile that she could be challenged on what she thought had happened, even though she was telling a completely different story.

“And so her evidence is troubling enough, it simply isn’t safe to know what to rely on,” said the judge.