The killer didn't have to weigh his options to find first degree murder

Content of the article

Aidree's killer, Michael Roebuck, will not have to weigh the pros and cons of his decision to kill his neighbor to be convicted of first-degree murder, a prosecutor said Thursday.

But Roebuck's attorney argued that his act of shooting Daniel MacDonald in broad daylight in the victim's driveway shows he did not deliberate before acting.

Content of the article

Defense attorney Kelsey Sitar asked the Alberta Court of Appeal to reconsider Roebuck's case or to overturn the second-degree murder conviction in the case.

Crown prosecutor Rajbir Dhillon questioned Judge Jo'Ann Streckoff's decision to conclude that Judge Michelle Hollins MacDonald's death was the result of planning and deliberation by the killer.

“We have an 11-minute situation that was caused by a fight,” Strekaf said, after the fatal shooting at an Airdrie gas station not far from Roebuck and McDonald's homes.

“Where can we find him thinking about the consequences?” he asked.

“There are six witnesses … he doesn't consider the consequences of 'what if I get caught.'”

But Dillon said Hollins didn't have to figure out what Roebuck thought would happen after killing McDonald.

“There is no need for this cost/benefit analysis,” he told the three-member appeals panel.

“You can tell by the totality of his actions that he was thinking and thinking about this plan,” Dillon said.

Content of the article

“You can assume he's discussed his plan and it doesn't matter if it's 11 minutes or an hour.”

Roebuck and MacDonald, who lived apart from each other in Airdrie, were former friends and business partners who fell out.

On September 7, 2019, during the day, two men collided and fought in the parking lot of a nearby gas station.

As Roebuck later left, he yelled, “I'll meet you at the house,” and when he arrived at the residence, he went to the basement, retrieved a shotgun, loaded it, and then waited in his garage until MacDonald came home.

The criminal then ran to the victim's driveway and shot him once in the chest and once in the back.

In his written submissions, Sitar Hollins said Roebuck failed to consider indicators weighing the potential pros and cons of carrying out a plan to shoot McDonald, such as whether he had an escape plan or whether he took steps to minimize or destroy witnesses.

The Court of Appeals reserved its decision.

[email protected]

X: @KMartinCourts

Share this article on social media