Pair who killed OPP officer appeal their first-degree murder convictions

Playing null of undefined

Convicted killers appeal decision in murder of OPP officer

Reaction after guilty verdicts in death of OPP officer

Pair found guilty of first-degree murder in death of OPP officer

Jury deliberations begin in first-degree murder trial into death of OPP officer

The two people involved in the 2022 killing of an Ontario Provincial Police officer are appealing their first-degree murder convictions.

The verdicts were handed down for Randall McKenzie and Brandi Stewart-Sperry on April 24, after the jury deliberated for six-and-a-half hours. Both were sentenced to life in prison with no parole eligibility for 25 years.

Constable Greg Pierzchala was shot six times on Dec. 27, 2022 while responding to a routine call about a vehicle in a ditch on Indian Line, near Hagersville, Ont.

The two suspects then fled the area in a stolen truck. Police said the truck was tracked to a property belonging to members of McKenzie’s family, on Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

• CASE REVIEW: Trial for the fatal shooting of OPP Const. Greg Pierzchala

Both McKenzie and Stewart-Sperry were arrested the same day in a wooded area near the property.

McKenzie was accused of pulling the trigger, while Stewart-Sperry was an “aider and abettor” in the shooting.

McKenzie’s appeal

McKenzie filed his appeal from the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre on May 21.

The 28-year-old cited “jury bias” as the reason for appealing his conviction.

Early in the trial, jurors sent the judge a note saying they “felt uncomfortable” because when they left the Cayuga, Ont. courthouse during their lunch break or at the end of the day, there were people crowding around their vehicles. Jurors stated that the four to six people, seen in the court gallery, “appear to be known” to McKenzie.

The defense suggested they question each juror individually about their concerns, and wondered if they could remain impartial during the trial.

“Can they still do their job?” Douglas Holt asked. “My position is we don’t know.”

Justice Andrew Goodman considered those arguments, as well as the possibility of moving the trial to a larger courthouse with more security. He ultimately decided not to interview the jurors as it was “incidental contact.” The judge then ordered additional security and police patrol for the parking lot and reminded jurors not to speculate on any connections between the individuals and the defendant.

“The letter by jury to trial judge stated more than one juror (a few) were uncomfortable with members of the public who they assumed were my supporters,” McKenzie wrote in his appeal, underlining the word “assumed.”

He added: “They had more opinions on the matter upon request. Defence asked to hear what else more they assumed and judge turned it down.”

McKenzie indicated that he wanted to apply to Legal Aid Ontario for a new lawyer and, if his appeal was granted, he wanted a judge only trial instead of a judge and jury trial.

Stewart-Sperry’s appeal

Stewart-Sperry, who is currently in custody at the Vanier Centre for Women in Milton, Ont., also filed her appeal on May 21.

While McKenzie only appealed his conviction, Stewart-Sperry wanted to appeal both her conviction and sentence.

She listed eight reasons for her request, copied below:

1. Erred in law in dismissing direct verdict application
2. Unreasonable verdict
3. Failure to give the rolled up instruction on mens rea [knowledge of wrongdoing]
4. Error to permit use of after the fact conduct evidence
5. Error in charge related to after the fact conduct evidence
6. Fresh evidence of after the fact conduct evidence re: Randall Mackenzie [sic]
7. Failure to correct instructions re: decision tree
8. Erred by failure to change the venue of the trial

During the trial, Stewart-Sperry’s lawyer asked for a directed verdict. The defence motion can only be made once the Crown has presented all its evidence.

Lawyer Scott Reid argued his client should be acquitted because the Crown had relied on speculation and after the fact conduct. No evidence had been presented, he continued, showing Stewart-Sperry knew the shooter was going to fire at the police officer, or that she even knew he had a gun.

Video from Pierzchala’s body-worn camera was shown during the trial. In it, Stewart-Sperry briefly covered her mouth with a blanket before answering a question posed to her by the OPP officer.

The Crown argued it was evidence she was helping the shooter.

“We allege aiding, distracting the officer,” prosecutor Fraser McCracken said.

Reid also stated that her behaviour after the shooting was not enough to convict Stewart-Sperry.

McCracken’s response was that she did not help Pierzchala after he was shot but instead left the scene with the shooter. He said her post-offense conduct gave meaning to what was shown in Pierzchala’s video footage.

The judge ultimately ruled that there were some reasonable and available inferences to be drawn from Stewart-Sperry’s actions and behaviour before and after the shooting, which supported the Crown’s case. He then dismissed the defence’s request for a directed verdict.

The jury was not present in the courtroom during these discussions.

If her appeal is granted, Stewart-Sperry indicated she wanted a trial with a judge and jury. She would also apply for a legal aid lawyer.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario has received both notices of appeal, but it’s not known how long it could take for a decision.

- With reporting from Krista Simpson