'No evidence' woman accused of murder knew OPP officer would be fatally shot: Defence

Article content

A woman co-accused of murder in the 2022 death of a provincial police officer was used as an “unwitting shield” by the shooter, her defence lawyer claimed Wednesday, arguing there’s no evidence she knew shots would be fired or that the shooter had a gun.

Ontario Provincial Police Const. Grzegorz Pierzchala was shot on Dec. 27, 2022, while responding to a vehicle in a ditch west of Hagersville, Ont., near Brantford.

Randall McKenzie and Brandi Stewart-Sperry were each charged with first-degree murder in the 28-year-old officer’s death, and both have pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors have argued that McKenzie was the shooter and that Stewart-Sperry intentionally helped him.

But in his closing arguments to the jury, Stewart-Sperry’s lawyer Scott Reid said the prosecution’s case against his client is relying on speculation.

“There’s no evidence that she knew, believed or even thought it possible that this man would shoot out with the cops to avoid going to jail,” Reid argued. “There’s no evidence she knew he had a gun. Worse than that, the Crown wants you to speculate that she knew about the gun.”

The trial has heard that the ditched car at the scene where Pierzchala was shot was stolen the previous day and that several stolen items, including a car key fob belonging to other people, were found in Stewart-Sperry’s backpack at the time of her arrest.

Prosecutor Fraser McCracken argued in his closing remarks Tuesday that the officer was shot because McKenzie and Stewart-Sperry wanted to avoid arrest. He told the jury that Stewart-Sperry had known that McKenzie had a gun because they were in a relationship, and that the pair fled from the scene after the shooting.

McCracken said Pierzchala’s body camera footage shows Stewart-Sperry stepping forward between the officer and McKenzie so that McKenzie could ready the gun, calling the two accused a “team.”

“What she does is exactly what Randall McKenzie needed her to do in that moment to be able to ambush Greg Pierzchala,” McCracken told the jury Tuesday, alleging that she “knew it was going to happen.”

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Try refreshing your browser, or
tap here to see other videos from our team.

Play Video

But Reid disputed that claim, pointing to specific frames in the body camera footage he said show Stewart-Sperry looking at the officer, not the shooter. She didn’t see what the shooter was doing, the lawyer argued.

“He’s using her as an unwitting shield,” Reid said. “He’s using her to block the officer’s view. This isn’t something he needed a teammate for.”

Reid said the footage shows Stewart-Sperry answered Pierzchala when he asked what had happened with the car in the ditch, and any suggestion by the prosecution that her doing so was a distraction is a “sinister spin.”

“It’s outrageous when you think about it. It’s a no-win situation. If she’d said nothing in answer to the questions, the prosecutor would have stood here and said she’s distracting him,” he argued.

Reid also pointed out that an agreed statement of facts read earlier in the trial said that Stewart-Sperry’s blood tested positive for drugs following her arrest. Reid described the amount of drugs found in her system as “significant.”

“They would have been having an effect on her mind, how much that’s for you to decide,” Reid told the jury, arguing that Stewart-Sperry appeared to be confused and uncoordinated during the incident.

Reid said the jury must consider other reasonable explanations for Stewart-Sperry’s actions after the shooting, noting that no one can predict what they would do after witnessing such an incident.

“Not only does the prosecutor hold people to a standard of perfection, he wants you to hold people to that very same standard,” Reid told the jury. “I think you’re smarter than that.”

McKenzie’s lawyer has also tried to cast doubt on the Crown’s arguments in the case, saying some witnesses’ descriptions of the shooter did not match his client’s appearance at the time of the incident.

That includes testimony that the shooter had “yellow, rotten teeth,” and the failure of some witnesses to note McKenzie’s distinct facial tattoos, Douglas Holt told the jury on Tuesday.

“There’s a reasonable inference that Randall and the shooter are not one and the same,” he said.

The defence lawyer also urged the jury to consider the fact that the gun used to kill Pierzchala didn’t just have McKenzie’s DNA on it, but several other DNA profiles as well. Holt argued that indicates his client did not have “exclusive” control and possession of the gun.

Holt also said that although Pierzchala was shot six times, only one shell casing was recovered by police — even though they “thoroughly” searched the scene, McKenzie and his belongings.

The trial taking place in Cayuga, Ont., has heard from multiple witnesses, including some who had stopped at the side of the road after spotting the car in the ditch, law enforcement officials involved in the investigation and relatives of McKenzie who testified they had seen the accused pair the afternoon of the alleged murder.

Jury deliberations are expected to begin later this week.