Sex assault on victim means murder, Crown says in Nunavut court

A first-degree murder conviction for Jeffrey Salomonie, above, hinges on whether he was capable of forming the intent to kill Daisy Curley in 2009, or whether he was too drunk to know what he was doing. (PHOTO BY STEVE DUCHARME)

Jeffrey Salomonie knowingly committed sexual assault on the night he killed Iqaluit resident Daisy Curley in 2009.

That accusation formed the basis of final arguments by Crown prosecutors Feb. 10 in closing submissions for Salomonie’s first-degree murder trial at Nunavut’s Court of Justice in Iqaluit.

“During the course of the morning of May 20, 2009, Jeffrey Salomonie sexually assaulted Daisy Curley,” Crown prosecutor Barry McLaren told Justice Neil Sharkey, who is presiding over the trial alone.

“The time framing of the commission of the murder and the sexual assault leaves the court no other conclusion but that he murdered her and committed a sexual assault and that offense is a murder in the first degree.”

Salomonie, now 48, beat Curley to death in her home with a hockey stick May 19, 2009, after a night of drinking at Iqaluit’s Storehouse Bar in Iqaluit.

And DNA evidence proves Salomonie had sex with Curley. But conflicting testimony by the accused makes it unclear if the intercourse took place before or after the attack.

Salomonie maintained during the trial that he had no recollection of the attack because of a “blackout” caused by excessive drinking.

Under the Criminal Code of Canada, a first-degree murder charge is applicable if a murder is committed at the same time as a sexual assault — regardless of whether the perpetrator intended to kill the victim.

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

But Crown prosecutors rejected that plea to seek a conviction of first-degree murder.

By maintaining Salomonie committed sexual assault, Crown lawyers circumvented closing submissions by defense lawyer James Morton, who had argued Salomonie was too drunk to form the intent to kill.

“Mr. Morton had indicated that this case focuses on a narrow issue: was Jeffrey Salomonie so drunk that he did not know what he was doing,” McLaren told the court.

“It is, in my submission, a much larger case than that.”

Because of conflicting testimony, it’s unclear whether sexual intercourse occurred before or after the attack that left her dying on her living room floor.

In a 2011 RCMP interrogation, Salomonie said he had sex with Curley after he regained consciousness early in the morning of May 20, 2009.

Curley’s pants and underwear were discovered at the crime scene in a bundle beside the body. The manner in which these were found suggests they were removed at the same time.

A forensic report, submitted as evidence in the trial, reported blood on the exterior of Curley’s pants, leading investigators to conclude she was wearing them at the time of injury.

The Crown argued that, if Salomonie’s 2011 testimony was true, he would be guilty of sexual assault because Curley was not in a state to consent to sex, given her grievous injuries.

But during the cross-examination of the accused Feb. 3, Salomonie claimed he couldn’t remember the 2011 interrogation, and said that he didn’t remember having sex with Curley.

If Salomonie didn’t have sex with Curley after the attack, Crown lawyers argued the attack itself was prompted by Curley refusing to have sex — therefore the attack leading to her death would still constitute first-degree murder.

According to the agreed statement of facts for the trial, Salomonie propositioned Curley three times before the pair arrived at her home.

“If she didn’t want to have sex with me she wouldn’t have invited me [to her home],” Salomonie also said, in written testimony.

And during the same 2011 RCMP interrogation, Salomonie told officers his blackout occurred after Curley “turned away” from him.

McLaren argued Salomonie’s own testimony verified he wanted to have sex with Curley, and by “turning away” she again refused to have sex, prompting the attack that killed her.

“In the Crown’s submission, there is no evidence that Daisy Curley submitted to sexual intercourse with the accused. In fact, there is significant evidence to the contrary,” McLaren told Justice Sharkey.

“If we accept his statement scenario [sex after the assault]… your position is that’s sex assault and still part of the ongoing transaction,” Sharkey asked the Crown.

“In either case, sir, it’s a sexual assault,” said McLaren.

Sharkey is scheduled to deliver his decision on the first-degree murder charge Feb. 22. He is expected to hear sentencing submissions Feb. 24, and is scheduled to impose a sentence Feb. 26.