Friday, May 13, 2005
The Halifax Herald Limited
|
How the jury ruled
Abducting a baby in contravention of a child custody order: VandenElsen guilty, Finck guilty
Firing a shotgun at police to avoid arrest: VandenElsen no verdict, Finck no verdict
Obstructing a police officer: VandenElsen guilty, Finck guilty
Using a shotgun while committing an indictable offence: VandenElsen guilty, Finck no verdict
Possessing an unregistered shotgun: VandenElsen guilty, Finck guilty
Threatening to use a shotgun in committing an assault on police: VandenElsen guilty, Finck no verdict
Possessing a shotgun dangerous to the public peace: VandenElsen guilty, Finck guilty
Careless use of a shotgun: VandenElsen guilty, Finck no verdict | |
Standoff Verdict Split
Couple
guilty on some counts, but jury undecided on charge of shooting at police
By Davene Jeffrey Staff Reporter and Kristen Lipscombek
A Halifax jury found Carline VandenElsen and Larry Finck guilty of several charges in a three-day armed standoff a year
ago with police who came to enforce a child custody order.
The Halifax couple were convicted Thursday afternoon in Nova Scotia Supreme Court of obstruction, abduction in contravention
of a child custody order, possession of a shotgun dangerous to the public peace and possessing the shotgun without a licence.
Ms. VandenElsen was also convicted of three other weapons offences, including using a shotgun to commit an indictable offence,
which carries a minimum sentence of a year in jail.
After a nine-week trial and two days of deliberations, the jury could not reach a unanimous decision on the most serious
charge the couple faced - shooting at police to avoid arrest.
In Mr. Finck's case, the jury also did not reach a verdict on charges of using a firearm while committing an indictable
offence and two other weapons offences.
In total, the jury found Ms. VandenElsen, 42, guilty of seven of eight charges and Mr. Finck, 52, guilty of four of eight.
No verdict was reached on the five remaining charges.
"There is not a chance that we will be able to agree," the jury said in a note Justice Robert Wright read in court.
Crown attorney Rick Woodburn told reporters outside the courtroom that "they seemed to be split on whether the shots were
actually fired at police."
The Crown alleged that Mr. Finck was an accessory to Ms. VandenElsen, who they believe fired the shotgun as police tried
to break down the front door of 6161 Shirley St. at the beginning of the standoff.
"They seemed to be hung up on whether he knew specifically that she was going to fire the gun," Mr. Woodburn speculated.
In court, Mr. Finck asked for each juror to state separately whether he or she agreed with the verdicts, and one by one
the 12 jurors stood up to state their agreement on all eight charges against the couple.
"That is the right of every accused," the judge told the courtroom about Mr. Finck's request.
Mr. Finck leaned over and whispered into his wife's ear as each juror stated his or her decision on each charge.
Throughout the trial, Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen claimed that his mother, who died of natural causes on the last day
of the standoff, had fired the gun and was in control of the house during the siege.
"In essence, they (the jury) cleared the mother of anything," Mr. Woodburn told reporters.
The couple both fired their lawyers during the trial and presented much of their own defence.
Since the trial began March 9, they have argued that they have been persecuted by uncaring state authorities who unjustly
wanted to seize their baby.
Justice Wright instructed the jury not to get caught up in any social or political statements the couple made. When he
reminded Ms. VandenElsen that her closing argument was not a platform for making political statements, she told the jury that
"a political opinion does not make a parent guilty."
The standoff began shortly after midnight on the morning of May 19 last year when police tried to enforce a court order
to place the couple's infant daughter in the temporary care of the Children's Aid Society.
Police used a battering ram to try to break down the barricaded front door and then a shotgun blast came from a window.
Police then evacuated and sealed off the quiet neighbourhood.
The couple stayed in the house, which belonged to Mr. Finck's mother, who lay sick in bed upstairs suffering from heart
problems. After she died, Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen emerged from their home carrying her body on a makeshift stretcher.
Ms. VandenElsen brought her baby in a baby carrier. The child is now in foster care but her parents are fighting to get
her back.
Mr. Finck has been in custody since the standoff ended on May 21, while Ms. VandenElsen has been free for most of that
time. Her freedom ended Thursday afternoon as sheriff's deputies led her and her husband from the courtroom.
Justice Wright ordered her into custody at the Crown's request.
"She's a substantial flight risk," Mr. Woodburn said, pointing to evidence that it is her habit to run from legal trouble
and she has fled before.
She had no response upon hearing that she would be remanded, but Mr. Finck stood up and asked to respond.
A deputy repeated "Sit down, Larry" before he sat down.
Both Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen are to return to court this morning to set a date for sentencing.
"You can't delay sentencing under the law," Mr. Finck said to the judge. "You don't have any right to delay it."
"Yes, I can," Justice Wright said. "The sentencing is my domain and I am going to want a brief from the Crown on what they
recommend.
"I'm going to give you and Ms. VandenElsen an opportunity . . . if you would like to file a brief."
Mr. Finck has also notified the court that he will ask for the convictions to be stayed because he and his wife were entrapped.
"It doesn't seem to have any merit, from our point of view," Mr. Woodburn said outside court.
A group of supporters accompanied the couple to court throughout the trial. As Ms. VandenElsen was led from the courtroom
Thursday, she handed her keys and a few other belongings to one of those women.
Earlier in the day, as she waited for the jury to determine her fate, Ms. VandenElsen sat on a bench outside the courthouse
playing an autoharp and singing. An independent filmmaker who has been attending the court hearing videotaped the scene.
Mr. Woodburn said to reporters that the Crown will consider "aggravating factors" when discussing an appropriate sentence
for Ms. VandenElsen and Mr. Finck.
He said such factors include "boarding up the house, firing a shotgun and keeping the police at bay for 67 hours in a residential
neighbourhood."
"The jury was certainly enlightened as to the different things the police did and the attempts the police made to get the
people inside the house to come out peacefully" during the standoff, Mr. Woodburn said.
"As the evidence showed, they waited until they came out, they didn't storm the house and they didn't go in after the initial
shot was fired," he said. "They acted very professional."
The Crown will also need time to review the charges on which the jury could not reach verdicts to determine whether they
should be stayed or retried, he said.
"(We'll) see where we stand at the end of all this," Mr. Woodburn said.
"It was a very long trial. The justice acted in a very patient and professional manner all the way through it . . . (and)
I have to thank the jury for their patience and diligence."
