THUNDER BAY – The defence argues a fatal encounter following a drug deal was the result of one man fighting to save his life, but the Crown sees it as a disproportionate response to a minor assault.
Closing submissions were heard by Justice Tracey Nieckarz on Thursday in the second-degree murder trial for 26-year-old Joseph Hubbard, who was charged in connection to the 2022 death of 28-year-old John Mark Reuben.
Hubbard pleaded not guilty at the start of the trial that opened on Monday.
Evidence presented throughout the trial detailed an incident in the early morning hours of June 24, 2022 when Hubbard, who had just met Reuben earlier that night, was selling him drugs inside his apartment on the 900 block of Miles Street East.
Hubbard testified that Reuben sprayed him in the face with body spray and then grabbed a knife from the kitchen. A struggle ensued and Hubbard stabbed Reuben once in the chest.
Reuben collapsed at the bottom of the stairs leading out of the apartment and Hubbard called 911. When police arrived on the scene Hubbard was arrested and Reuben was transported to hospital where he was pronounced dead.
A post-mortem examination determined the knife penetrated Reuben’s heart and the cause of death was due to severe blood loss.
“The defence's position is simply this: Mr. Hubbard did not commit the offence of second-degree murder because the Crown did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when he stabbed Mr. Reuben he was not acting in self defence,” said defence counsel George Joseph in his closing submission.
Joseph pointed to the evidence of that night, which he said was, for the most part, uncontroversial.
“When the police arrive, the first thing the accused says is: ‘you gotta help him, man,’” Joseph said. “I submit the accused’s version of the events is most consistent with the physical evidence, the 911 call, and the post-mortem.”
Focusing on the 911 call, Joseph argued Hubbard immediately reached out to first responders after discovering the severity of Reuben’s injury, while also noting: “you can hear the panic in [Hubbard’s] voice, you can hear his pleas for assistance. The defence submits that Hubbard is in shock.”
During his testimony on Tuesday, Hubbard said he thought Reuben was going to kill him and that he feared for his life.
Joseph argued Reuben’s actions of getting the knife would lead one to conclude that he intended to use the knife against Hubbard, who responded in exactly the way one would in that situation, to stop the attack.
“The accused does not need to have actual violence committed upon them,” Joseph said.
“It is the reasonable belief that it is going to be used or threatened against him. The facts were he was attacked, not just that he was going to be attacked.”
The Crown questioned Hubbard during cross-examination, asking why he did not take other actions other than stabbing Reuben, such as backing away or calling police for help.
Joseph took issue with the Crown’s suggestions, saying they are being viewed with: “a calm, sober, and tactical precision.”
“The possibility of retreat could have resulted in much more dire injuries to the accused, or worse,” Joseph said. “It simply invites a different victim.”
According to Hubbard’s testimony, after Reuben was stabbed he said: ‘stop.’ Joseph said the fact that Hubbard did stop at that moment is incredibly telling in this case.
“There is no indication of malice toward [Reuben]. [Hubbard] achieved his purpose. He stopped the attack against him,” Joseph said.
“If you have a reasonable doubt that the conduct of stabbing [Reuben] was reasonable in the circumstances as the accused knew or knew them to be, the accused was acting in self-defence and has committed no crime and you must find him not guilty.”
Joseph added that if Nieckarz finds the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Hubbard’s actions do not constitute self-defence, he should only be found guilty of manslaughter as the intent does not rise to the definition of second-degree murder.
Crown attorney Mitchell Flagg took the position that Hubbard’s actions were disproportionate to the alleged threat he faced that night, and he ought to have known that stabbing someone in the chest would cause significant bodily harm and likely result in death.
“Anyone who causes bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause death must, in those circumstances, have a deliberate disregard for the fatal consequences he knows is likely to result,” Flagg said.
“Stabbing someone in the chest, or even in the stomach, which was not the case here, with an enormous and sharp knife, was inherently dangerous.”
Flagg questioned how much of a threat Reuben posed that night, noting that the threat at its highest point was Reuben spraying Hubbard with body spray.
It was also suggested by Flagg that there were other options Hubbard could have taken, such as retreating from the situation or using less lethal force.
“The decision to stab Mr. Reuben instead of repelling the force with lesser force or equal force, was greatly disproportionate by the minor force faced by the accused,” Flagg said.
“If Mr. Reuben committed any offence against Mr. Hubbard, it was a very minor assault, not even a robbery. There was no theft and no threat. And this was in the risky and dangerous activity of drug dealing in Mr. Hubbard’s home.”
Flagg went on to suggest that it was actually Hubbard who escalated the situation and was prepared to use force against Reuben inside his apartment and had a knife ready to deal with any trouble.
Based on evidence from the scene, which included a butter knife on the floor that had a DNA profile on the handle matching that of Reuben, as well as the absence of Reuben’s DNA on the handle of the knife used to stab him, Flagg suggested that Reuben never grabbed the sharp knife at all, but rather Hubbard did.
“[Hubbard] was not taken by surprise by whatever Mr. Reuben did. He was ready to respond. A human being was killed in a violent way over $15 worth of drugs,” Flagg said.
“Mr. Hubbard’s conduct wasn’t reasonable. It wasn’t self defence. He knew that by plunging the knife into Mr. Reuben’s chest he was inflicting injuries to cause bodily harm that likely would result in death.”
Nieckarz asked for clarification regarding the DNA evidence on the knives.
Joseph said there could be any number of reasons as to how Reuben’s DNA got on the butter knife, such as during the struggle or from a droplet of blood, and determining that would be pure speculation.
The matter has been adjourned to May 31 for Nieckarz's decision.
