Delmas testimony proves own guilt: Crown

By Peggy Revell on May 4, 2018.

The Crown prosecutor threw a curveball during closing arguments Thursday, asking that the court accept the testimony of a man accused of sexual assault

“On the accused’s evidence, you should convict,” the Crown said, arguing that Michael Christopher Delmas’s own testimony shows the complainant was unable to consent as she was high on methamphetamine he had given her, and he was “recklessly and willfully blind” and failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain she was consenting.

Delmas took the stand in the morning to testify in his own defence over the charges stemming back to spring 2015. If convicted, the Crown could seek dangerous offender status for him as he has two previous sexual assault convictions.

Delmas testified that his relationship with his girlfriend was falling apart, and he believed he and the complainant were dating as they would hold hands, kiss and act like a couple.

This contradicted the complainant’s testimony on Wednesday that she only saw Delmas as a friend — testimony questioned by defence counsel, as the complainant also testified to having sex consensually twice with the accused.

Delmas testified that during this time period, he was doing meth on almost a daily basis.

He testified to being high on meth when he came to the complainant’s house one night in February. He testified to providing meth to her, with it being the first time he ever witnessed her take this type of drug. He testified that they began kissing and groping each other, and had sex consensually on the couch. The complainant’s testimony was that he pinned her to the floor and tried to rape her, and she had not taken meth that night.

The accused testified that he asked for and received her consent and she willingly participated.

There was choking during this encounter, he said, admitting it’s a “turn on” for him, but did this only after obtaining her consent.

“I have a previous history of sexual assault, and giving consent was top of my list so I’d never be charged with sexual assault (again),” he said.

He denied ever choking her during a separate incident where they were rough-housing.

With no corroborating evidence, defence counsel said during closing arguments that it came down to credibility between the accused and complainant. Parts of the complainant’s testimony “make no sense” or were “puzzling and bizarre,” counsel argued — and when taken with the accused’s testimony, raises reasonable doubt that should lead to an acquittal.

In arguing for the complainant being unable to consent, Crown pointed to the accused’s own testimony on the effect of meth on memory and judgement, how he gave the complainant the drug without knowing its affect on her, and how he didn’t check in with how it was affecting her before sex.

Defence rebutted that no evidence given showed the complainant was impaired to the point she couldn’t give consent, or didn’t know what was happening.

The decision has been adjourned to June 22. A separate sexual assault charge against Delmas was dismissed Wednesday due to lack of evidence.

Share this story: