R. v. Bell, British Columbia Court of Appeal
There are worse things than being called “T-Dog” — unless it leads to you being convicted for second-degree murder.
In
R. v Bell, appellant Trevor Bell insisted the judge had erred by using the two names interchangeably.
T-Dog was the drug dealer who shot and killed a man who had offered some parenting advice during a drug deal, after T-Dog revealed he wanted to sexually assault his former partner who had custody of their child.
However, Chief Justice Lance Finch said the identification issue had been highlighted to the jury.
Bell also tried to claim the jury shouldn’t have been told about a carjacking he carried out the day after the shooting, using the murder weapon.
But Finch shot down this argument, pointing out that: "The appellant's possession and use of the murder weapon the day after the shooting, and his statement . . . that he was 'running from the cops because he killed somebody the night before or something' was very incriminating." It was "difficult to conceive" how the carjacking could've been ignored, he said.
The appeal was dismissed.
