By Tiffany Goodwein

‘Why was this night different?’ Defence challenges witness reliability in Curtis Sagmoen trial

Dec 18, 2019 | 5:30 PM

Whether or not a witness’s statements are reliable were questioned by the defense this afternoon in the Curtis Sagmoen trial.

Defence lawyer Lisa Jean Helps argued the Crown cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt the allegation of intentionally discharging a firearm. Yesterday the witness, who cannot be identified because of a publication ban, testified that she did not hear the discharge of a gun.

“She at no time heard the discharge of the gun. She agreed that she was focused on the gun there’s no doubt, and I cannot use this in submissions and also not concede it. Her reliability is not good.”

B.C Supreme Court Justice Alison Beames responded she thought the witness was credible, which Helps agreed to also, but Helps argued there is a difference between reliability and credibility.

Helps poked holes in how an investigator on the stand could only say that the gunshot in the tire was “a contact shot,” roughly less than 20 centimeters, and that the tire could not have been shot from very far away.

Charger rollout

Phased approach planned for EV chargers at Vernon ALC

Apr 24, 2026

Secondary Dwellings

Coldstream considering more housing on agricultural lands

Apr 24, 2026

Wildfire Risks

Okanagan's Fire Danger Rating already up to Moderate

Apr 23, 2026

“We don’t know the angle of the shot because remember that’s part of evidence too. We have to know the positioning of the tire,” Helps said.

She questioned the Crown’s main argument involving a pattern of incidents of women that were called out to Sagmoen’s rural neighborhood

“Why was this night different?”

“If my friend’s only rational inference is one of guilt and this is a pattern, why does the pattern end on this particular night, and there is no answer to that?” Helps said.

The ‘hallmarks of an ambush,’ as argued by the Crown, was also disputed.

Defence lawyer Helps pointed to two key pieces of evidence, the lack of a 410 rifle and a reasonable explanation of the ammunition being found in the car and trailer. The explanation, Helps argued, was provided in a statement given by Sagmoen and Const. McQueen.

She also noted that there were a series of break ins in the area and witness reports of the shared driveway being used as an access road, therefore it’s hard to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Sagmoen was responsible.

In response Crown lawyer Simone McCallum said that while the evidence is circumstantial, there is sufficient evidence to suggest Sagmoen as a suspect.

“We have here a pattern of behavior that involves continually or prior occasions of contacting escort workers”

“There’s no leap of faith to conclude that on this day, for whatever reason, they decided to do something a bit different. Nothing about the deliverance here points to thefts or committing thefts in the area,”

Justice Beames is expected to give a decision on Friday.

Earlier on Wednesday, Beams acquitted Sagmoen on a charge of uttering threats due to a lack of evidence.

by Tiffany Goodwein

View Comments