A jury of six men and six women must now decide if Phillip Joe Jr. is guilty in the killing his brother Conrad Joe last August.
Phillip's defence counsel of David and Jason Tarnow rested their case and made final arguments to the jury in Vancouver Supreme Court Tuesday morning. Phillip is charged with second-degree murder following the August 2009 stabbing death of Conrad after a night of drinking that culminated in a fight between the brothers. The fight broke out, allegedly, when Phillip criticized Conrad for using their father's home phone to place an order with a local cocaine dealer.
During his closing arguments, Jason Tarnow characterized Conrad as a violent drunk who was known to attack Phillip, his father Phillip Sr., and even perfect strangers "just because he wanted to beat on someone."
Tarnow recalled testimony from Phillip when he took the stand in his own defence on Monday and suggested Phillip feared for his life when the fight broke out.
"What he did see was the look in Conrad's eyes -a look that terrified him," Tarnow said.
Tarnow went on to describe to the jury how Conrad had "boxed in" Phillip next to the kitchen sink.
"Phil did what he had to do to stop Conrad's attack," Tarnow said.
Phillip bowed his head and wept in the prisoner's box as Tarnow retold the events of the night.
Tarnow's final witness, Staff Sgt. Bligh Woodworth, was a constable with Sunshine Coast RCMP in 1994 and was on duty the night Conrad attacked and killed retired doctor James Farish during a bungled robbery. Woodworth said he made the discovery of Farish' body "lying in a pool of blood." Conrad was convicted of manslaughter and served 10 years in prison for the crime.
"Conrad killed before and could easily have killed again here," Tarnow told the jury.
In his closing argument, Crown counsel Trevor Cockfield reminded the jury that Conrad's past crimes have nothing to do with whether Phillip intended to murder his brother.
"There's no question that Conrad was an angry, violent individual and you may be thinking 'maybe he deserved what he got,'" he said. "You must put that aside. We don't want to live in a society where people we don't like are killed with impunity."
Cockfield said, while there may have be inconsistencies between the testimony of some witnesses, some facts of the case were irrefutable.
Several witnesses testified they saw Phillip and Conrad punching each other, contrary to the defence's suggestion that Phillip was under attack. Cockfield then reminded the jury that neighbours of the Joe residence heard Phillip threatening Conrad.
"The accused was yelling that he was going to kill his brother," Cockfield said.
Cockfield argued that none of Phillip's behaviour that night was consistent with someone acting in self-defence, including chasing after Conrad and threatening to kill him.
Lastly, Cockfield questioned Phillip's behaviour immediately after the stabbing.
"He didn't help Conrad. He simply walked back to the house, poured himself a cup of milk and continued to wash dishes. He had done what he intended to do," Cockfield said to the jury in a sombre tone.
Judge Sunni Stromberg-Stein is expected to give lengthy instructions on the points of law relevant to the case to the jury on Wednesday morning before deliberations begin.
