New trial underway for Hamilton man who shot and killed Six Nations man in 2016

Hamilton Police on scene in a 2016 shooting incident at a residence in Binbrook, Ont. Global News

A new trial to decide whether a Binbrook, Ont. man intentionally killed a Six Nations man at a residence more than six years ago kicked off at a downtown Hamilton courthouse on Monday.

In what’s expected to be a three-week trial, jurors will decide the fate of Peter Khill, a man accused of fatally shooting Jon Styres in his driveway next to a pickup truck on Feb. 4, 2016.

The agreed statement of facts was one of the first items presented on Monday. It states that Khill confronted Styres around 3 a.m. in front of his house on Feb. 4 and shot him twice with a shotgun.

Styres died as a result of injuries caused by Khill firing the shotgun. The weapon used was recovered by police at the scene.

Crown attorney Sean Doherty told the court Monday that Styres was trying to steal Khill’s old pickup, and conceded that it was wrong.

Story continues below advertisement

However, he insisted it was not enough to kill him.

Two Hamilton Police officers, involved in the 2016 investigation, testified in person on Monday.

Get the latest National news. Sent to your email, every day.

An agreed statement of facts from a third forensics officer was also entered as an exhibit.

The Remington 870 shotgun that was fired at Styres, a Winchester 12 gauge shotgun found in Khill’s home, as well as firearm ownership documents were some of the evidence jurors got to see.

They also heard a portion of the 911 call made by Khill.

One juror was discharged during proceedings on Monday, due to a personal matter, and replaced by one of two alternates selected late last week.

Earlier last week, the judge declared a mistrial after two jurors had to be dismissed — leaving the court with no room to lose any more jurors over the course of a two- to three-week trial.

Khill, who has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder, was granted another trial two years ago by an Ontario court, confirmed through a Supreme Court decision last year.

Story continues below advertisement

The defendant is arguing he was acting in self-defence.


Sponsored content