UPDATE 5: 28 p.m.
Cory Van Gilder and his family broke down in tears Tuesday when a jury returned a not guilty verdict on the charge of manslaughter.
It took more than a day for them to come back with the decision that means they found that Van Gilder was not criminally responsible for killing Zachary Gaudette by punching him in the neck.
His lawyers argued that Gaudette was drunk and looking for a fight Feb. 17, 2016 and dug up his criminal history and recent Facebook conversations to paint a picture of a volatile man battling some “inner demons.”
Although Van Gilder’s family had been at the entirety of the trial, they declined an opportunity to speak to media who had gathered outside. Their relief, however, was palpable.
ORIGINAL STORY:
Did Cory Van Gilder have to defend himself and the people he was with from a threat outside a Kelowna Cactus Club in 2016?
Or did he needlessly sucker punch Zachary Gaudette?
That’s one of the main issues jurors in Van Gilder’s manslaughter trial started considering when they were sequestered Monday afternoon to begin deliberations.
Defence lawyer Jeff Campbell said in closing arguments Monday that Van Gilder’s snap decision to deliver the blow that killed Gaudette Feb. 17, 2016 was made in defence of himself and others.
“In 20 seconds what was supposed to be a surprise birthday party turned into a fatal altercation,” said Campbell. “In 20 seconds one person’s life was lost. And in 20 seconds Mr. Van Gilder’s life was upended.”
For past stories in this trial click here.
Campbell said that the altercation was a sad and tragic case, of a “senseless, unnecessary confrontation.”
A confrontation he hangs the responsibility for on Gaudette.
Gaudette, he said, was sad, troubled and “battling some inner demons.”
He had a criminal record for assault and had, weeks prior to his death, been stopped by police for carrying firearms. He fled and ultimately ended up in Kelowna three days before his death.
Campbell also pulled up Facebook conversations to illustrate how volatile he was.
After allegedly assaulting his girlfriend, she wrote a Facebook message to his sister and said he was unsafe and needed medication.
In another conversation from later that day, Gaudette told the girlfriend he was going to steal a car and go back to Ontario. Then he sent her a picture of a vodka bottle. When he arrived in the hospital later that night his blood alcohol level was .276, which is three times the legal driving limit.
That, as well as witness testimony painting Gaudette as a crazy man looking for a fight with anyone, sets the scene for self defence, he said.
“For no reason he accosted this group of young people and there’s no question that he was aggressive and dangerous,” said Campbell.
“Mr. Van Gilder’s reaction was one defensive blow. It was one punch that had tragic consequences. He had no intention to cause that kind of harm.”
The essential issue to this case, argued Campbell, is when is a person entitled to defend themselves or others.
“Does he have to wait until he’s being attacked? The law does not require that,” he said.
Campbell also pointed out that a secondary line of defence would be that Gaudette invited the fatal altercation.
Crown counsel Andrew Vandersluys pointed out that the hit was ultimately not justified and did not meet the standard for self defence.
Gaudette may have been drunk and agitated, and threatening a fight, but it was Van Gilder who stepped forward and swung a fatal right hook.
Before doing so, Vandersluys said he adjusted his cap, turning the brim backward. Afterward, he said, Van Gilder lurched forward, having to steady himself from the impact.
Gaudette, Vandersluys said, was “ready to fight but did not anticipate the hit.”
Gaudette’s arms, he pointed out, weren’t ever raised into a fighting position. He was merely yelling that he wanted to fight.
“This is essentially a sucker punch,” Vandersluys said. “He didn’t consent to this blow.”
He was “aggressive and angry,” but not about to attack.
Van Gilder’s actions after the attack were also under scrutiny in closing remarks.
Van Gilder has said that he punched Gaudette to defend himself and the others standing outside the Banks Road restaurant that night, but he left without checking if the man he punched got up and whether the safety of others was secured.
“If leaving (before) is not an option, then why is leaving afterward,” said Vandersluys.
He also highlighted Van Gilder’s comparative strength and condition to fight.
Van Gilder trained in jiu jitsu six years previous to the altercation and Vandersluys said someone with that knowledge and training, facing someone who is clearly very intoxicated has an advantage.
“They have an ability to face that threat in more proportionate way,” he said. “A punch of this sort … a hard punch, was not that. It was not a proportionate response to anything.”