B.C. Court of Appeal upholds Maple Ridge murder conviction, rejects self-defence arguments in 2022 shooting
The B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of a man found guilty in a fatal 2022 shooting inside a Maple Ridge home, ruling a jury was properly instructed to reject his claim of self-defence.
In a unanimous decision released April 17, a three-judge panel dismissed an appeal by Justin Michael Wareing, who was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of Cashmere Ali and attempted murder in the shooting of Matthew Whitty.
Wareing was sentenced to life in prison with no eligibility for parole for 14 years on the murder count, along with a 13-year sentence for the attempted murder.
The case centres on a July 15, 2022 shooting at a residence on 119th Avenue in Maple Ridge, where Wareing admitted he fired multiple rounds from a handgun, killing Ali with a shot to the head and injuring Whitty as he tried to flee.
The dispute related to the proceeds of a robbery that had taken place two days earlier, when Wareing, Whitty and others targeted a drug dealer’s home.
According to trial evidence, Wareing went to the residence with a gun to confront Whitty over a supposed unfair division of the stolen money.
Whitty testified that Wareing shot him in the knee before turning the weapon on Ali when she attempted to intervene. A second witness, who was in the kitchen at the time, told the court he saw Wareing pull out a gun and shoot Ali, then continue firing as Whitty tried to escape.
Whitty ultimately made his way to a nearby police station despite his injuries.
While Wareing did not dispute firing the shots, he testified he acted in panic after hearing what he believed was a gunshot fired at him.
He told the jury he “shot up” the living room blindly with his eyes closed, sweeping his arm back and forth without aiming at anyone, and stopped only once he believed he could escape safely.
“I was thinking get out of there alive,” he said to the court, describing himself as “terrified” and in a continuous state of shock from the shooting through to his arrest the next day.
He also said he had no memory of how many shots he fired or in what order, acknowledging it could have been six or more rounds.
Physical evidence presented at trial included seven spent .22 calibre casings and a separate nine millimetre casing found in the living room, along with bullet fragments in the hallway and near the entrance.
A central issue at both trial and appeal was Wareing’s behaviour after the shooting.
Evidence showed he fled the residence immediately, got into a waiting vehicle, and drove away without calling 911 or seeking help for the victims.
He later drove to another Maple Ridge home, where he removed his clothing, showered, shaved his head, and remained until police arrived the following day. When officers attempted to arrest him, Wareing tried to flee out the back door before surrendering.
At trial, Wareing attributed all of these actions to a prolonged state of panic, telling the court he was not thinking clearly.
On the appeal, Wareing argued the trial judge erred in how the jury was instructed to interpret that post-shooting conduct.
His lawyers said the judge should have told jurors the behaviour had “no probative value” – meaning it could not be used to draw conclusions about guilt – particularly because it could be explained by fear or other unrelated wrongdoing, such as his illegal possession of a firearm.
They also argued the judge failed to properly explain how the sequence of gunshots related to intent, which would distinguish murder from other offences.
The court rejected both arguments, finding the jury charge, when read as a whole, was legally sound.
The ruling emphasized that while the trial judge correctly told jurors that Wareing’s after-the-fact conduct could not be used to prove intent to murder, it could still be considered when assessing whether he acted in self-defence.
Actions like fleeing, changing appearance, and failing to call emergency services could reasonably support an inference that Wareing knew his actions were unlawful, according to the appeal court.
“It is arguably more consistent with that inference than with an innocent explanation,” said Justice Peter Willcock.
Jurors were also repeatedly cautioned to consider innocent explanations, including Wareing’s claim that he was acting out of fear and shock, noted Willcock.
The appeal court also found no error in how the trial judge handled the issue of the sequence of gunshots.
While the defence suggested the fatal shot could have occurred early in the incident – potentially supporting a claim of self-defence – the court noted there was no clear evidence establishing the exact order of shots.
Witnesses gave conflicting accounts, and Wareing himself said he did not know who he shot first.
The judge ultimately instructed jurors to consider the available evidence on the sequence of shots, which the appeal court found sufficient.
Applying what it described as a “functional” approach – assessing whether the jury was properly equipped to decide the case – the court concluded there was no legal error that would justify overturning the verdict.
