A Prince Albert judge has the next few weeks to decide whether or not he’ll remove Leslie Black’s guilty plea from the court record.
On Thursday morning, closing arguments finished in the case of Marlene Bird’s accused attacker.
Leslie Black, 30, had previously entered a guilty plea to attempted murder in the June, 2014 attack on Marlene Bird. She was set on fire, stabbed and left for dead in downtown Prince Albert.
Last month, grim details came out during testimony in Black’s expungement hearing. Judge Harradence said he’s seen the facts of the case and that “no one would argue that it’s a horrendous case.”
But in court on Thursday, the court was focused on whether Black’s signature on the guilty plea was voluntary, uniequivocal, and informed.
These are legal requirements, which defence lawyer Brent Little argues were not met when Black entered his plea and signed the agreed statement of facts.
The situation is made more complicated by the fact that, at the time that Black entered his pleas, the Crown had been seeking dangerous offender status.
Little says Black may have signed off on the understanding that a dangerous offender status could lead to him spending life in jail, but that he didn’t understand all the possibilities in between. This includes what’s called an indeterminate dangerous offender status, which means he would serve jail time but after his release would need to follow certain conditions.
“(Black) deserved, as an individual charged with the most serious sentencing regime in this country, to understand” that regime, Little told the court.
Judge Harradence questioned Little in-depth, saying that since is Black signed off on the worst-case result of a dangerous offender hearing, how is he supposed to conclude that Black wasn’t informed?
Crown prosecutor Bill Burge argued that because Black was fully aware of what determinate dangerous offender status meant, and that’s what matters most.
Little, however, argued that the accused deserves to know the worst, what is likely, and his lawyer’s opinion – but in this case the likely was not covered by Black’s former defense, Legal Aid’s Adam Masiowski.
Another contentious point in closing arguments was the question of Black’s level of cognitive functioning.
There was no evidence given that he has a cognitive disability, but Little says the judge can see that Black is a “simple, unsophisticated man” based on his response to questions while testifying.
Judge Harradence introduced speculation that Black, rather than asking for an expungement hearing because he hadn’t been told of the consequences of his plea, might have had a different motive.
“Do you think there’s evidence here that he simply changed his mind?” Harradence asked.
Burge pointed out there was evidence given by Black himself during the hearing that he’d spoken with a fellow inmate who had a good understanding of legal processes.
The ruling on whether Black’s plea will be stricken from the court record or whether they’ll proceed to sentencing is expected on June 1.
That happens to be exactly two years after Bird was attacked and left for dead in downtown Prince Albert.