December 14, 2017 12:30 pm
Updated: December 15, 2017 4:06 pm

Dellen Millard’s mistrial request dismissed as jury continues deliberations in Babcock trial

Tue, Dec 5: Dellen Millard spent an entire day presenting his closing argument. As Caryn Lieberman reports, he argues he cannot be convicted because there is no evidence he committed murder and Laura Babcock may be alive.


TORONTO — A judge has dismissed a mistrial request from a man accused of killing a former lover and burning her body as a jury continues to deliberate on a verdict in the case.

Dellen Millard, who is representing himself, had argued that the lawyer of his co-accused, Mark Smich, crossed the line in his closing address to the jury when he purportedly blamed Millard for the death of Laura Babcock.

Story continues below

READ MORE: Mark Smich had no reason to kill Laura Babcock, his lawyer says in closing arguments

The judge presiding over the case says Smich’s counsel simply pointed at the evidence brought forth by the Crown during the eight-week trial.

The Crown alleges Millard and Smich killed Babcock in the summer of 2012 because she was the odd woman out in a love triangle with Millard and his girlfriend.

They contend the pair covered up their crime by burning Babcock’s remains in an animal incinerator. Babcock’s body has not been found.

READ MORE: Laura Babcock is not dead, Millard tells jury in closing arguments

Both Millard and Smich have pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in Babcock’s presumed death.

Smich’s lawyer, Thomas Dungey, told the jury that if they conclude that Babcock is dead and her death was caused by an unlawful act then Millard was the principal offender — he had the opportunity, a motive and bought a gun the day before the 23-year-old Toronto woman vanished.

Millard argued he should have been given advance notice of Smich’s “antagonistic” position from the outset.

READ MORE: Jury begins deliberation in murder trial for presumed death of Laura Babcock

Both Millard and Smich had said in pretrial motions that they did not intend to put forth a “cut-throat” defence, where two accused blame each other for an alleged crime.

Millard said Smich changed his position during Dungey’s closing address, and called it “an unfair ambush” and a “surprise attack.”

Justice Michael Code said it was well within Dungey’s rights to take the position he did in his closing address.

LISTEN: 640 Toronto legal expert Lorne Honickman joins The Morning Show

© 2017 The Canadian Press

Report an error


Comments closed.

Due to the sensitive and/or legal subject matter of some of the content on, we reserve the ability to disable comments from time to time.

Please see our Commenting Policy for more.