A Court of Queen’s Bench justice has determined there is enough solid evidence from reliable and credible witnesses to find Ryan Ernest Tatum guilty of a 2018 home invasion.
Justice J. Mitchell read his decision in court on March 10, after reviewing all the evidence from a judge-only trial several months ago. In his decision, he found Tatum participated in a break-in at an apartment suite on 11th Avenue Southwest on Dec. 22, 2018, and was guilty of committing a robbery while armed with an offensive weapon or imitation.
Specifically, Tatum and his three accomplices broke into the apartment suite of Miles Chartrand at 2:26 a.m., based on video evidence from the apartment building. One individual grabbed Chartrand by the throat and held him down in his wheelchair, Tatum held a gun to his head, while other individuals stole Chartrand's medications. They all then fled.
Tatum will return to court on Thursday, May 7 at 9:30 a.m. to be sentenced.
Judge’s decision
Tatum’s evidence presented during the trial needed to be closely scrutinized, Mitchell said. On the last day of his examination, Tatum offered an alibi for the evening of Dec. 21, 2018 and early morning of Dec. 22, 2018, something he had not disclosed beforehand. This fact raised additional issues the justice had to consider while weighing the evidence.
Common law says an accused who submits an alibi defence at trial must disclose that information to the prosecution in sufficient time to allow the authorities to investigate it before trial.
Mitchell then presented case law from 2018 that referenced the effect of late disclosure of an alibi. Afterward, he pointed out that Tatum’s testimony about his alibi took the Crown by “complete surprise.”
Tatum’s defence counsel argued this was his first Queen’s Bench trial and his first experience with alibi evidence, Mitchell said. The accused even said he did not know of the legal requirement to disclose an alibi defence quickly to the Crown.
The Crown, conversely, argued failure to disclose mattered little. What mattered was, if that information had been disclosed earlier, the Crown could have investigated its accuracy since Tatum and his girlfriend visited two Moose Jaw venues on Dec. 21, 2018. Those venues had security cameras that could have revealed the couple’s presence and confirmed Tatum’s testimony that they were there.
“I accept that defence counsel had no ill intent by failing to disclose his client’s defence within a reasonable time prior to trial,” Mitchell said. “This does not mean that I must reject the alibi evidence out of hand. Rather, it means that while I admit this evidence, I should draw an adverse inference when evaluating it, as a consequence of (Tatum’s) failure to disclose this evidence.”
Mitchell then presented more case law examples to determine whether Tatum had credibility and whether his evidence was reliable. The justice concluded Tatum’s evidence was neither credible nor reliable and he rejected entirely.
Tatum claimed he and his girlfriend went Christmas shopping and then to the casino on the evening of Dec. 21, 2018, before they returned home to get high and he passed out. Mitchell determined this was inconsistent with the testimony given by other trial witnesses, whose evidence he found credible and reliable.
Mitchell pointed to reliable trial evidence from Nicholas Connolly, who lived in Tatum’s basement at the time. Connolly said he came across Tatum and three others in the kitchen on Dec. 21, where they were planning a robbery. Connolly identified the individuals and explained the plan during the trial.
Connolly also identified Tatum from the apartment building’s security camera video. His evidence, along with that of two police officers, disproved Tatum’s evidence about being asleep during the home invasion, said Mitchell.
“The burden of proof resting on the Crown applies to the entire body of evidence … ,” Mitchell said. “I am satisfied that the Crown has met its burden to prove that Mr. Tatum committed the offence of which he stands charged.”
Mitchell added that he was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Tatum was the man who committed the home invasion and found him guilty of the offence of robbery while armed with an offensive weapon or imitation weapon.
