Lawyer casts doubt on complainant’s testimony

During the closing arguments in a trial for a man accused of beating up and robbing a man in 2023, defence described the key witness — the complainant — as evasive and combative during his testimony.

“There were quite a number of times where, when asked questions, he would go off on, effectively, semi-related tangents that don’t actually answer the questions,” defence lawyer Anthony Dawson said on the final day of Evan Dickhout’s trial in Brandon’s Court of King’s Bench on Wednesday.

Dickhout is charged with robbery with a weapon, assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon for the purpose of disturbing public peace. The Crown amended the charge of robbery with a weapon to robbery with violence on Wednesday.

Graeson Wasicuna, the complainant, testified on Tuesday that Dickhout and another man brutally beat him up and stole his bag, which had an expensive pair of shoes he intended to sell in it, and his earrings. During the assault, Wasicuna said Dickhout threw a folding knife at his chest three times.

Dawson finished cross-examining Wasicuna on Wednesday. Dawson questioned him on the series of events leading up to the alleged assault and suggested that it would have been difficult for Wasicuna to make out who was assaulting him.

When police found Wasicuna on July 31, 2023, there were brass knuckles left on the scene, which Wasicuna testified they used on him.

“Those were your brass knuckles, weren’t they?” Dawson asked. “Not only were these your brass knuckles, but you were the first one to pull out a weapon, weren’t you?”

Wasicuna said he had no weapons on him that night.

Wasicuna previously testified that he had post-traumatic stress disorder, which Dawson pointed out was because of the violence he witnessed in jail. He suggested that Wasicuna would do anything, including lie on the stand, to stay out of jail.

In Dawson’s closing arguments, he questioned Wasicuna’s reliability.

“(He) made it very clear, whenever pressed on it, that he knew these two fairly well, and yet he was able to get them mixed up,” Dawson said, referring to when Wasicuna described Dickhout as Indigenous to police, when Dawson said it was the other man who was Indigenous.

“There is already some reason … to begin bringing Mr. Wasicuna’s version of events into a bit of doubt, specifically whether or not he’s able to actually identify his attackers properly,” he said.

He said Wasicuna contradicted himself several times during his testimony, which he called “self-serving,” and argued that Wasicuna conveniently didn’t remember certain details.

Crown attorney Rich Lonstrup said Wasicuna admitted that there were several discrepancies between his testimony and his statement to police, and pointed out that his statement to police was less than hour after he was assaulted.

“Everything he says to the police is very freshly in the wake of a frightening and overwhelming incident,” Lonstrup said. “Mr. Wasicuna would not be at his best peak self and recollecting every minor detail at that moment.”

Lonstrup said even though Wasicuna may have gotten minor details wrong, it doesn’t mean the evidence should be thrown out as a whole.

He also pointed out that Wasicuna had been face-to-face with Dickhout before, since Wasicuna had sold clothing to him prior to the incident, and that it wasn’t a situation where he had seen him before from across the room or in a nightclub.

“He knows who these individuals are. He knew who Dickhout was from the moment he approached that building,” he said.

Lonstrup noted that in Wasicuna’s testimony, he said he remembered the brass knuckles being off-white or bronze in colour, when they were in fact black. He said if these were his brass knuckles, he would have been able to describe them.

He acknowledged that Wasicuna was frequently “sassy” while on the stand but said the court has to remember that people aren’t used to being cross-examined.

“Mr. Wasicuna found it frustrating and annoying to be challenged on something that he was fundamentally certain of,” he said.

Justice Elliot Leven reserved his decision. The matter will come before the court again on Oct. 14 to set a date for Leven to deliver his decision.

» sanderson@brandonsun.com