Ryan Applegarth
The Alberta Court of Appeal has overturned the second-degree murder conviction of a Ponoka man and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge made a critical legal error when assessing the mental state required for a murder conviction.
Ryan Jake Applegarth, 37, was convicted in May 2023 for the killing of his common-law spouse, Chantelle Firingstoney, who died in their Ponoka home on Nov. 5, 2020. The mother suffered catastrophic injuries including 12 broken ribs, a lacerated liver, and extensive blunt-force trauma to her head, face, neck, torso, and extremities. She had 1,400 millilitres of blood in her abdominal cavity at the time of death.
In a unanimous decision released April 17, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal ruled that the trial judge repeatedly failed to apply the correct legal test for second-degree murder.
“The trial judge erred in law in her assessment of the necessary mens rea for second-degree murder,” wrote Acting Chief Justice Dawn Pentelechuk on behalf of the panel. “The resulting conviction is unsafe and must be set aside.”
A circumstantial case
The Crown’s case was entirely circumstantial. Firingstoney had been drinking at a friend’s house and left around 8 p.m. showing no signs of injury. She arrived home sometime within the next hour. Shortly after 9 p.m., Applegarth went to a neighbour’s home and asked for an ambulance. Medics found Firingstoney unresponsive and could not revive her.
At trial, there was no dispute that Applegarth and Firingstoney were the only adults in the home immediately before her death. The defence called no evidence, suggesting instead that Firingstoney may have been struck by a vehicle or assaulted by a third party on her way home. The trial judge rejected those theories and convicted Applegarth.
Missing element
On appeal, Applegarth did not contest that he caused Firingstoney’s death through an unlawful assault. The dispute centered on whether he had the specific intent required for murder.
To convict for second-degree murder under section 229(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code, a judge must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to cause bodily harm, knew that harm was likely to cause death, and was reckless as to whether death occurred.
The appeal court found that the trial judge repeatedly omitted the “knowledge” component — that Applegarth knew the bodily harm he inflicted was likely to kill — both in her oral reasons for conviction and in her subsequent written sentencing reasons.
“A finding of recklessness does not equate to, or subsume within it, a finding of the level of knowledge required for a second-degree murder conviction,” the court wrote. The recklessness standard — foreseeing a risk or possibility of death — is lower than the required standard of knowing death was a “probable consequence” or “substantially probable.”
The panel noted the trial judge used “decidedly imprecise and tentative language,” including describing evidence as “strongly suggestive” or that it was “not unreasonable to infer” certain facts, leaving the appeal court unable to conclude she had properly bridged the inferential gaps required for a murder conviction.
No substitution for manslaughter
The Crown asked the appeal court to uphold the conviction using the “curative proviso,” arguing the evidence was overwhelming. The court rejected that argument.
“There is a realistic possibility that a jury could have reached a different verdict of manslaughter,” the panel wrote.
The court declined Applegarth’s request to substitute a conviction for the lesser offence of manslaughter, noting the Crown did not concede that a retrial for second-degree murder is impossible. Instead, the panel ordered a new trial.
“The appeal is allowed and a new trial is ordered,” the decision concludes.
Applegarth’s application to admit new evidence on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel was dismissed as unnecessary given the outcome.
The new trial will proceed in the Court of King’s Bench at a date to be determined.
