Man convicted of murdering Misha Pavelick files appeal

An appeal notice was filed on Monday on behalf of the 37-year-old man found guilty of the 2006 killing of Misha Pavelick.

In November, after multiple days of deliberation, a jury in Regina found the man guilty of second-degree murder in Pavelick’s death. The man was handed a youth sentence last month, meaning he still cannot be publicly named under the provisions of Canada’s Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Read more:

• Man shot and injured by Regina police officers during call about crossbow
• Man charged after allegedly stabbing 70-year-old woman in downtown mugging
• Police in Saskatoon, Regina warn public about traffic ticket text scam

The appeal detailed three reasons why he feels his conviction should be reconsidered by the court.

The notice claimed the judge didn’t present the evidence and positions of the defence and Crown in a fair and balanced manner, especially “by reviewing the elements of the offence and the evidence relating to those elements in a manner that unduly favoured the Crown.”

Secondly, the appeal said the judge made errors in her instructions to the jury and rulings around the evidence. The appeal notice said the judge misapplied a rule stating cross examination can’t rely on evidence that contradicts the testimony of the witness. According to the document, the judge told the jury that the evidence of Josh Senkow was capable of confirming the evidence of Scott Nelson.

Senkow told court during the trial that he and some friends had encountered the offender and his friends in a parking lot at Regina Beach just after Pavelick was stabbed to death. Senkow said someone claimed to have “shanked some kid with a beer bottle,” or words to that effect, but he wasn’t clear who might have said it. At the trial, Senkow and another person who was present that night said they didn’t see blood on the offender, but did see blood on another member of the group.

The appeal also contended the judge made errors in the preparation and delivery of her charge to the jury, saying she didn’t give the lawyers enough time to take a meaningful look at her charge before it was delivered, and that she gave incorrect instructions around circumstantial evidence.

The offender was given a seven-year youth sentence in June – four years to be served in custody and three years to be served in the community, with no credit for the time he had already spent in custody.