Youth found guilty in jaw-breaking fight

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 06/05/2023 (882 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

It took a jury only four hours to find a Brandon man guilty of aggravated assault for breaking the jaw of a 17-year-old back in 2021.

The trial of Ayden Scramstad, which began in Court of King’s Bench on Monday, wrapped up Friday morning with closing arguments from the prosecution and the defence.

Scramstad was on trial after pleading not guilty to a charge of aggravated assault for throwing a punch that broke his young victim’s jaw in two places, requiring the youth to have a metal plate installed in his mouth for the rest of his life.

The victim, who the Sun is choosing not to name as he was underage at the time of the incident, said he had been invited to a girl’s apartment on 10th Street in Brandon around midnight Feb. 28, 2021, after the two had exchanged messages over Snapchat.

When the boy arrived, Scramstad, then 20 years old, came out of the apartment, grabbed the victim by the collar of his sweater, yelled at him, and hit him twice in the stomach before delivering the jaw-breaking blow.

During the victim’s testimony, he told the court he had not consented to the fight, and he had never returned any of the punches.

With his head ringing from the punch, the victim phoned his friend, whose house he then drove to. He testified that he stopped the vehicle, spitting a mouthful of blood out on his way. His friend cleaned up some of the blood from the victim’s face and drove him to the hospital around 1 a.m.

The victim travelled to Winnipeg for surgery and had to have his jaw sewn shut for two months and a metal plate permanently placed in his mouth to repair the damage from the punch.

“One punch, that’s why we’re here today,” co-counsel for the prosecution, Lisa Carson, said during the Crown’s closing remarks Friday.

Prosecutors described the case to the jury as “straightforward,” as they summarized the evidence for jurors.

The Crown argued that while the defence wanted jurors to believe the victim consented to the fight, prosecutors maintained that the victim was lured to the apartment by the girl, who was Scramstad’s girlfriend at the time.

Prosecutors said the victim’s appearance at the apartment made Scramstad angry and jealous.

“This was a situation where a young man let his emotions get the better of him and he reacted with violence,” Carson said.

Crown attorneys also pointed to the evidence of Scramstad’s friend, who received a phone call from Scramstad that February night. While the friend did not testify in court, prosecutors and the defence entered an agreed statement of facts based on a statement made by the friend that was read to the jury.

In the statement, the friend said he had answered a call from Scramstad at 12:45 a.m. in which Scramstad said he had gotten into a fight and hit someone twice. About half an hour later, the witness also received a call from the victim’s friend, asking about the incident.

Prosecutors urged jurors to find the various witnesses that took the stand credible, suggesting that any difficulty in remembering exact times was normal for an event that occurred two years ago.

Defence lawyer Jonathan Richert told jurors in his closing remarks the inconsistencies in witnesses’ recollection of timelines cast doubt on the reliability of evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.

Richert focused on the victim’s credibility, indicating to jurors that there was a history of animosity between the victim and Scramstad and that there was evidence to suggest the two had agreed to a fight.

The defence lawyer told the jury the only evidence of the Snapchat messages between the victim and the girl was the victim’s own testimony — police were unable to obtain the messages from the social-media company. Richert also suggested the only statement the victim gave police was taken in the presence of his mom, motivating him to avoid unflattering details and tell a story that paints him as an innocent victim.

Richert argued the Brandon Police Service’s investigation was “incomplete,” and pointed out that the constable who responded to the incident didn’t take a followup statement from the victim or other witnesses throughout the course of his investigation. That officer, Const. Jeremy Foidart, testified before the court this week.

The defence lawyer reminded jurors that his client is presumed innocent until proven guilty and the burden is on the Crown to prove the allegations against him beyond a reasonable doubt.

“Some of you may feel an emotional desire or need to convict, and thereby in doing so, hope that you may be righting the wrong of a young man being injured in a way that you heard described,” Richert said, telling the jury to set aside their emotional impulses and use common sense, reason and evidence to apply the law.

The jury entered into deliberations around noon Friday and read their guilty verdict to the court shortly after 4 p.m.

A date for Scramstad’s sentencing will be determined on June 12.

» gmortfield@brandonsun.com

» Twitter: @geena_mortfield