The jury in the manslaughter trial of a 47-year-old Quinte West woman has heard closing submissions from both sides and is expected to begin deliberating by the weekend.
Both the Crown and defence presented final arguments to jurors, in the case of Nicole Scardino, who is accused of hitting her former partner Sam Andrews with her car, outside a home on West Street on June 16, 2018.
Andrews, who was 49 at the time of the incident, died at the scene and Scardino was originally charged with second degree murder, but that charge was lessened to manslaughter last year.
Defence Attorney Peter Zaduk spent about three hours on Thursday morning highlighting his client’s character, attempting to discredit Crown witnesses and trying to persuade the jury to find their own conclusion, instead of believing the Crown’s story.
He highlighted instances of abuse by Andrews in the 10-plus year relationship with Scardino, but says his client was a “good and caring woman” who continued to care for Andrews even after they separated.
Zaduk told the jury that Scardino never intended to hit Andrews that night, despite the fact they were arguing and he became belligerent, banging on her car, yelling and swearing at her. He says his client was afraid she might get hurt and things might turn violent if she got out of the car.
During the three-week trial, Scardino had testified that she was driving slowly and instead of going down the centre of the narrow driveway, steered towards the house to avoid Andrews. She said her attention was on the building as well and she didn’t know anything was wrong until she heard a ‘thud’. She believed that Andrews had jumped in front of the car.
Zaduk says Scardino didn’t leave Andrews laying there, but in fact tried to help him, called 911 and admitted she hit him, which Zaduk says are all qualities of how an innocent person would act.
He told the jury that anything other than a not guilty verdict would be a “monstrous” act of injustice.
At least one expert witness had testified that Scardino was going approximately 10 km/h and Zaduk suggested that based on the speed and Andrews’ location to the car, the fatal incident was no more than a freak accident.
In the afternoon, Assistant Crown Attorney Mike Lunski attempted to reinforce the Crown’s case that Andrews was in plain view of Scardino and had been standing in front of the car, holding up his hand, when he was struck.
Lunski told the jury that even though Scardino claimed to be trying to avoid Andrews, the physical evidence showed that the collision did happen closer to the middle of the driveway, which was in line with what at least one eyewitness had testified.
He also told the jury that evidence from that eyewitness has more credibility and reliability than Scardino, who would have been distraught at the time of the incident and has an obvious interest in the outcome of the case, whereas the witness does not.
Zaduk countered that since Scardino is the accused, her interest in the case shouldn’t be considered by the jury.
When it came to an argument that Scardino didn’t accelerate but had just let the car idle forward, Lunski says that can’t be true based on the relative speed of the impact, and the distance between the car and Andrews. He says she must have pushed the accelerator and driven forward.
Lunski went on to say that there were inconsistencies and omissions in Scardino’s testimony, which should cause the jury to question her credibility.
While Zaduk had made an argument for self defence, Lunski told the jury that the test for that finding can’t be met, especially given the fact that Scardino was driving a car and Andrews was unarmed. Lunski told jurors that on that day, Andrews was “hardly the threat” that the defence suggests.
Zaduk countered that driving the car should be considered to be self defence since his client had every right to drive away from the confrontation.
Following about three hours of his own submissions, Lunski concluded that the jury should find Scardino guilty since even though she may not have intended to kill Andrews, she drove dangerously with intent to hit him, or at least drove in a manner that was dangerous to him.
Justice Robert Scott is scheduled to give his instructions to the jury on Friday, before deliberations begin.
