Colten McNeely's actions 'catastrophically stupid' but not murder, N.W.T. judge says

Colten McNeely was found guilty of manslaughter Tuesday in the death of Lloyd Edgi in Fort Good Hope, N.W.T.

Prosecutors charged McNeely, 26, with murder after Edgi, 28, was stabbed to death on Sept. 3, 2017. McNeely's trial took place in Yellowknife last fall, in front of a judge alone, without a jury.

In a Yellowknife courtroom, N.W.T. Supreme Court Justice Andrew Mahar ruled McNeely was not guilty of murder, but was guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter.

"It is not a question of what happened," Mahar said. "The burden of proof is what happened beyond a reasonable doubt, not just the bare bones, but the intent."

In order to be guilty of murder, the accused has to intend to kill someone without caring whether that person might die, according to the Criminal Code. In this case, Mahar ruledthe Crown had not convinced him beyond a reasonable doubt that McNeely intended to kill Edgi that night.

RCMP officers, witnesses and McNeely himself testified during the course of the trial.

• Read more about how each side made their case in the trial here

The court heard McNeely and Edgi crossed paths several times the night Edgi died. Both had been drinking and were fighting about an earlier affair McNeely had with Edgi's spouse.

Early in the evening Edgi beat McNeely and threw him down a flight of stairs.Later, McNeely met Edgi on a darkened path, where the two got into another altercation. This time, McNeely pulled a knife from his pocket and stabbed Edgi, who died.

McNeely testified that the stabbing was self-defence, and he'd only stabbed Edgi to keep Edgi from beating him.

The burden of proof is what happened beyond a reasonable doubt, not just the bare bones, but the intent- N.W.T. Supreme Court Justice Andrew Mahar

Mahar spoke about his decision for roughly 30 minutes Tuesday afternoon.

He explained that even though parts of McNeely's story don't make sense, he was willing to give McNeely the benefit of the doubt in two aspects of the case: changes to McNeely's story, and why he sought out Edgi for the second time.

He called that decision "catastrophically stupid" and "reckless" but allowed that it could have been an attempt by McNeely to reconcile with Edgi.

McNeely's inconsistencies between statements he made to police shortly after the incident, and his testimony in court could be because his memory was altered by heavy drinking during the night of the incident, Mahar said.

Difficult case, says judge

Mahar also took several opportunities to remind the people in court including Edgi's mother that parts of his ruling didn't necessarily reflect his personal beliefs, but rather reflected the evidence presented at court by Crown and defence attorneys.

He noted the challenges faced by prosecutors in filling in the blanks left by the evidence. He called it a difficult case as much of the evidence was circumstantial and nearly every witness or participant in the incident had been drinking.

• How the first RCMP officers on scene testified about what they saw

Crown and defence lawyers have agreed to meet at the end of March for a pre-sentencing hearing.

The sentence will be handed down shortly after, with Crown prosecutors, McNeely's lawyerand Mahar agreeing that holding the sentencing hearing in Fort Good Hope would be a good idea.