WARNING: This story contains graphic content that may disturb some readers
Questioning has closed in the hearing of a Prince Albert man who wants a judge to remove his guilty plea – for the June, 2014 attempted murder of homeless woman in Prince Albert – from the court record.
Leslie Black, 30, was arrested in the weeks after Timber Bay woman Marlene Bird was set on fire and stabbed. She was hurt so badly that she required multiple facial skin grafts and her legs had to be amputated.
Black entered his plea in April of 2015. Months after that, his Legal Aid defense Adam Masiowski withdrew from the case and the province’s Legal Aid offices also severed their relationship with Black.
There were only two witnesses at the expungement hearing for Black in Prince Albert Provincial Court on Wednesday.
As defense lawyer Brent Little’s only witness, Black took the stand for several hours in the morning. He testified he did not try to kill Bird in June of 2014, despite having signed off on an agreed statement of facts saying otherwise. The day he signed that statement (April 28, 2015) he also instructed his lawyer at the time to enter the guilty plea.
Black, who has a heavy stutter, explained he sought a plea deal because that’s what he’s done in the past and he wanted to get it over with. He’d expected no longer than a five-year sentence, Black said.
On cross-examination, Crown prosecutor Bill Burge revealed many elements of June 1, 2014 that Black does not dispute. Black admits he did spent time with Bird the night she was attacked.
Burge asked Black why he had told Masiowski he had been upset with Bird that night. Black responded that Bird had blacked out while they were having sex, and when she came to Bird said she was going to lay sexual assault charges.
Burge then asked Black “did you tell police that you stomped on her face?” Black paused and said, “I think so.”
Black said there are two parts to that night. When asked which part is the truth, Black said “that I stomped her out.” The second half – involving him lighting Bird on fire – is false, he said.
Black said his story about setting Bird on fire – which he told to Masiowski – isn’t true, and that it came out of fear that someone might hurt Black’s father or himself if he didn’t take responsibility for it.
Black said he doesn’t remember who threatened him.
Defense and the Crown have taken different stances on how well Black understood the potential consequences of admitting guilt. Little stated multiple times that Black is not a sophisticated man, and needs things simplified.
Black’s defense from that time, Masiowski, was the second witness. Little and Burge picked apart Masiowski’s legal advice leading up to the guilty plea for attempted murder.
Reflecting on what he told Black at the time, Masiowski said in his view there was too much evidence for Black to be acquitted so his plan was to seek the lowest prison sentence possible.
Masiowski said he told Black on multiple occasions that he was free to request to go to trial at any time, but Black never told him he wanted to go to trial. Masiowski said that Black had wanted him to negotiate with the Crown to drop the additional aggravated sexual assault charge.
He said Black had difficulty understanding how things could play out in court when it comes to sentencing, especially since the Crown was planning to seek the complicated dangerous offender status for Black.
If the Crown succeeded with a dangerous offender application, the possible sentences varied. However, there is a possibility that Black could get a determinate sentence that could keep him behind bars for as long as he’s alive.
Masiowski said he’d let Black know this was possible, but that based on the evidence, Gladue factors, and case law, didn’t think the Crown would succeed in having Black labeled a dangerous offender.
In two months, Judge H. Harradence will make a ruling that will either allow Black to seek a trial – or be forced to proceed to a sentencing.