Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly identified the justice in this case as Justice Gary Weatherill when, in fact, the presiding justice was Justice Gordon Weatherill.
Curtis Sagmoen is awaiting sentencing for assault causing bodily harm after he was found guilty by a B.C. Supreme Court Justice on Tuesday afternoon.
The North Okanagan man had pleaded not guilty to the charge, which stems from an August 2017 incident in which a woman reported she was hit from behind by a quad.
She testified that after he told her he didn’t know where the RV he lived in was and then pretended the ATV had broken down, she decided to walk back to her vehicle.
It was during that walk back to her car that she said she was hit from behind by the quad.
She testified she was hit so hard she flipped over the ATV and landed on her front on the ground.
With little hard evidence presented at trial, the case hinged on the reliability of the complainant’s testimony.
Ultimately, Justice Gordon Weatherill believed the core of her testimony about the collision.
“Her evidence in that regard was consistent and unyielding. While other aspects of her evidence were put in doubt through cross examination, her evidence regarding the incident itself was not,” Weatherill said in his verdict.
In finding Sagmoen guilty as charged, Justice Weatherill also rejected the defence argument that the collision could have been an accident.
“He likely became angry because the complainant began walking back to her car such that whatever plans he had for her that day were about to be thwarted,” Weatherill said.
The case will be back in court on March 2 to set a date for a sentencing hearing.
Closing arguments
In closing arguments Tuesday morning, Crown said the case had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, while defence argued Sagmoen should be acquitted.
The only documentation of the complainants’ alleged injuries, submitted to the court, was one picture of injuries to her leg, which defence argued could have also been caused by scratches from bushes as she walked in the rural area in shorts.
Court heard that the complainant didn’t seek medical treatment after the collision.
She told the court she is generally reluctant to seek medical treatment.
With very little hard evidence, the case hinged on whether the justice found the complainant credible.
In closing arguments, prosecutor Juan O’Quinn asserted that her evidence was credible and reliable.
O’Quinn said her testimony was consistent on the major points and she didn’t have a motive to mislead the court.
“What motive would a sex trade worker, an escort, who is a vulnerable person in a dangerous situation, possibly have to get herself involved with the RCMP when she is providing this service to people in the community?” O’Quinn asked rhetorically during closing arguments.
“She was able to recount her version of events over and over and over. There is a reason why she could do that, because she is telling you the truth.”
However, Sagmoen’s defence lawyer, Lisa Jean Helps, argued the complainant wasn’t credible or reliable and that her client should be acquitted.
Helps argued the complainant’s description of her injuries were not consistent with the way the complainant described the collision took place.
Defence counsel questioned why the complainant reported a broken tail bone and bump to the back of her head but no injuries to the front of her body, given that complainant testified she landed on her front.
Helps also argued the woman did have a motive to present the story in a certain way.
“What she very specifically told you in cross-examination was, ‘I didn’t want to go to the police till I knew there were others,'” Helps said during her arguments.
Helps argued the complainant was testifying because there was a possibility others had been harmed, which Sagmoen’s lawyer argued called the complainant’s credibility into question.
Defence argued that even if the court finds the complainant credible, there is still reasonable doubt the alleged collision was an accident.
Comments