Fog of alcohol clouded memory of killing, Nunavut man claims

Accused killer Jeffrey Salomonie is escorted into the Nunavut Court of Justice in Iqaluit Feb. 10 at the conclusion of his trial. Salomonie is accused of first-degree murder in the May 2009 death of Daisy Curley. (PHOTO BY STEVE DUCHARME)

He says he was too drunk to know what he was doing.

When atheCape Dorset man beat Iqaluit resident Daisy Curley to death with a hockey stick early one May morning in 2009, his extreme intoxication prevented him from being aware of his actions or forming the intent necessary for murder, the man’s lawyer says.

Defence lawyer James Morton submitted closing arguments Feb. 9 at the Nunavut Court of Justice in Iqaluit, on behalf of his client, accused killer Jeffrey Salomonie.

Salomonie, now 48, is on trial for first-degree murder in the death of Curley, who he left to die on her living room floor after a night of drinking that began May 19, 2009 at Iqaluit’s Storehouse Bar.

“We say Mr. Salomonie didn’t posses the intent or knowledge to commit the murder,” Morton said to Justice Neil Sharkey, who is presiding over the case alone.

“Obviously, this is a tragic case. A woman is dead and her family is devastated. Mr. Salomonie is lost to his family and incarcerated for five years now. The community as a whole is hurt.”

Salomonie has admitted to killing Curley and pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter at the outset of his trial Feb. 1.

But Crown prosecutors rejected that plea and seek a conviction for first degree murder.

Because of his admission of guilt, the trial narrowed its focus to Salomonie’s state of mind on the night he killed Curley, and if he knowingly acted to end her life.

According to an agreed statement of facts, Salomonie consumed approximately 12 beers at the bar as well as roughly 20 ounces of vodka shared between himself and Curley from a bottle he had in his Frobisher Inn hotel room.

DNA evidence gathered by forensic investigators also indicates the two engaged in sexual intercourse — but it’s unclear when that sex occurred.

Salomonie maintained during his testimony that he “blacked out” before assaulting Curley and didn’t regain his memory until the following morning, when he left Curley’s home and returned to the hotel.

“I don’t remember any of it. I don’t remember getting mad at her. And that’s the truth,” Salomonie said during his cross-examination Feb. 3.

“There’s a lot of vodka. There’s a lot of beer. The extreme level of inebriation goes towards the intent,” Morton argued.

Sharkey asked Morton if the extent of Curley’s injuries couldn’t be used to presume Salomonie was aware his attack might lead to her death.

According to a forensic autopsy, Curley had approximately 17 lacerations on her head, ranging from moderate to severe in nature.

“If you inflict bodily harm on someone that is likely to cause death, than you are guilty of murder. Intoxication is not the issue,” Sharkey said.

Morton disagreed. He said intoxication is indeed a major factor in the existing evidence, and it’s up to the Crown to sufficiently disprove Salomonie’s recollections.

Morton shifted his attention to allegations by the Crown that the assault was prompted by Curley’s refusal to have sex with Salomonie — which, if true, would form the intent required for a first-degree murder conviction.

“There is no evidence at all in the context of the sexual intercourse,” Morton said, arguing that the DNA evidence gathered does not disprove consensual sex earlier in the evening.

“The grey areas don’t go to the Crown, they go to the defense, but that’s not much of a grey area,” Sharkey said.

Morton cautioned the court to be skeptical of in a 2011 police interrogation video where Salomonie said Curley “turned away” from him in the moments before he blacked out.

“[The] interview was extremely lengthy, emotional, and the responses received were dragged out of the accused. In general there was no narrative. Whatever evidence that comes out of the interview needs to be viewed with caution,” Morton said.

“A great deal of it [the interrogation] is leading. In fairness to the officers, their technique is very different from the intention in a court.”

Technical issues in the courtroom postponed the day’s closing arguments until the afternoon, leaving no time for Morton to conclude his final submissions.

The trial will continue Feb. 10, when Morton is expected to deliver the remainder of his arguments. Crown lawyers will then follow with closing arguments the same day.

Sharkey is hoping to give his decision Feb. 22. Sharkey will then hear submissions for sentencing by lawyers Feb. 24, and is scheduled to impose a sentence Feb. 26.