B.C. court overturns man's murder conviction in New Westminster stabbing
The B.C. Court of Appeal has overturned the second-degree murder conviction of a man who was sentenced to life in prison following a fatal stabbing in New Westminster, B.C.
Ryan Crossley was sentenced in April 2024 to life in prison with eligibility for parole for 14 years after a jury found him guilty of second-degree murder in the death of Robert Powshuk on Nov. 19, 2021.
His brother, Curtis Crossley, pleaded guilty to manslaughter in August 2023, police said, and was sentenced to nine and a half years in prison.
But B.C.'s highest court has ordered a new trial for Ryan Crossley after finding that a lower court judge made an error instructing the jury on the "level of intoxication" Crossley was experiencing at the time of the stabbing.
In September 2023, a B.C. Supreme Court jury heard that both Crossley brothers had been consuming illicit drugs. Crossley's defence lawyers argued his intoxication should be considered when determining whether he intended to kill Powshuk.
A charge of second-degree murder means that the perpetrator either intended to kill their victim, or meant to cause bodily harm and knew that bodily harm could result in death.
The appellate court found that the Supreme Court judge had instructed the jury incorrectly about how intoxicated a person would have to be before their intent could be questioned.
According to a judgment posted online on Monday, the lower court judge's "confusing and legally problematic instructions on a material issue" meant that the jury was not properly equipped to decide the case in September 2023.
"The defence of intoxication formed an integral part of the appellant's response to the prosecution for second degree murder, and trial fairness required that the defence be given meaningful consideration with reference to the proper legal framework," the Appeal Court judgment reads.
"That did not happen."
Bleeding heavily in coffee shop
Powshuk was discovered inside a Waves coffee shop on Columbia Street in New Westminster on Nov. 19, 2021, bleeding heavily from stab wounds.
According to the judgment, there was an argument between Powshuk and the Crossley brothers beforehand, which turned physical. There was evidence that all three men had been taking illicit drugs.
Surveillance footage showed "stabbing motions" by Ryan Crossley into Powshuk's abdomen, and Powshuk later died in hospital.
Crossley's lawyers argued his intoxication should be taken into account in assessing his culpability for second-degree murder.
They maintained that the idea he was in a state to have the intent to kill Powshuk was flawed, given his state of impairment.
If he was found to have caused the death, but had not formed the intent to kill, Crossley's defence argued the correct conviction would be the lesser charge of manslaughter instead.
"Ask yourselves was he in a state to be thinking clearly, to be appreciating the likely result of his conduct?" a defence lawyer is quoted as saying in the judgment.
Level of intoxication
In a criminal trial, Crown prosecutors have to prove their charge beyond a reasonable doubt, as an accused is considered innocent until proven guilty.
While the jury was deliberating the case, it asked the judge to "define the level of intoxication in regards to an accused['s] understanding of the consequences of his/her actions."
In response, the judge provided guidance, which included that they should be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Crossley caused the death with the intent to kill.
"Let me just put it this way," the judge is quoted as saying. "You must consider whether the level of intoxication impacted Ryan Crossley's mind to such an extent that it caused him to lose control of his thoughts and actions."
This section of the guidance was the heart of the appeal, with Crossley's defence counsel arguing the jury was misled.
In ordering a new trial, the appellate court found that the judge's instructions made it much harder for the defence to prove reasonable doubt regarding Crossley's intention to kill, and therefore, whether he committed second-degree murder.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
OPP takes over Sudbury death investigation
Two off-duty Sudbury police officers have been suspended with pay in connection to the death of 19-year-old Rocco Renaud. Chief Sara Cunningham filed a complaint over their actions on May 23, when officers responded to an unresponsive man in Lively. Renaud later died in hospital. Ontario Provincial Police are now handling the investigation.


CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
Sudbury woman to learn length of jail term
A woman convicted in the stabbing death in Sudbury on Boxing Day 2020 will soon learn how much time she must serve before being eligible for parole. Angela Gemmill has the latest.


CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
Jury returns to deliberate for a second day at Sean ‘Diddy' Combs' sex trafficking trial
Sean "Diddy" Combs arrives at the LA Premiere of "The Four: Battle For Stardom" at the CBS Radford Studio Center, May 30, 2018, in Los Angeles. (Photo by Willy Sanjuan/Invision/AP, File) NEW YORK (AP) — A jury returned to deliberate for a second day Tuesday at hip-hop mogul Sean 'Diddy' Combs ' federal racketeering and sex trafficking trial. Jurors were back behind closed doors weighing whether prosecutors proved the charges at a trial that began in early May. Combs' lawyers and prosecutors, meanwhile, began the day wrangling in the courtroom with Judge Arun Subramanian over how he planned to answer the jury's latest question. Jurors ended the day Monday by asking the judge for clarification about what qualifies as drug distribution, an aspect of the racketeering conspiracy charge that will help determine whether Combs can be convicted or exonerated on the count. Subramanian said he would remind jurors of the instructions he gave them on that part of the case before they started deliberating on Monday. Combs' lawyers had pushed for a more expansive response, but prosecutors argued — and Subramanian agreed — that doing so could end up confusing jurors more. On Monday, the panel deliberated over five hours without reaching a verdict. Prosecutors say Combs for two decades used his fame, fortune and a roster of employees and associates to help him coerce and force two different girlfriends to repeatedly perform sexually with male sex workers for days at a time while he watched and sometimes filmed the drug-fueled events. Defense lawyers say prosecutors are unjustly basing federal crimes on what Combs did in the bedroom with his girlfriends as they participated in the swinger lifestyle and on acts of domestic violence involving their client. Combs, 55, could face 15 years in prison to life behind bars if he is convicted of all charges. After pleading not guilty, Combs chose not to testify as his lawyers built their arguments for acquittal mostly through lengthy cross examinations of dozens of witnesses called by prosecutors, including some of Combs' former employees who took the witness stand reluctantly only after being granted immunity. When jurors first left the room to begin deliberating on Monday, Combs sat for a while slumped in his chair at the defense table before standing and turning toward three rows of spectators packed with his family and friends. Those supporters held hands and lowered their heads in prayer, as did Combs, who was several feet from them in the well of the courtroom. After they finished, they together applauded, and so did Combs, still clapping as he turned back toward the front of the room. Combs also showed off two books he's reading: 'The Power of Positive Thinking' by Norman Vincent Peale and 'The Happiness Advantage' by Shawn Achor. Barely an hour into deliberations, the jury foreperson sent a note to the judge, complaining that there was one juror 'who we are concerned cannot follow your Honor's instructions. May I please speak with your Honor or may you please interview him?' The judge decided instead to send jurors a note reminding them of their duties to deliberate and obligation to follow his instructions on the law. By day's end, the jury seemed back on track, sending the note about drug distribution. Michael R. Sisak And Larry Neumeister, The Associated Press