Menu

Topics

Connect

Comments

Comments closed.

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

Please see our Commenting Policy for more.

For second time, William Sandeson appeals conviction in Taylor Samson murder

WATCH: A former medical student is appealing his murder conviction for killing a fellow Dalhousie University student during a drug deal in 2015. As Callum Smith reports, it’s not the first appeal in the case. – May 2, 2023

William Sandeson is appealing his murder conviction and sentence in the 2015 killing of Taylor Samson.

Story continues below advertisement

Sandeson was found guilty of second-degree murder in February. During the trial, he had claimed he killed Samson in self-defence during a cannabis deal on the evening of Aug. 15, 2015.

The Crown had argued that Sandeson, who was 23 at the time and about to begin studying medicine at Dalhousie University, was buried in debt and planned to kill Samson that night to steal the 20 pounds of cannabis he had previously arranged to buy for $40,000.

In the end, the 12 jurors found Sandeson guilty of second-degree murder.

It was Sandeson’s second trial for Samson’s murder. He was initially found guilty of first-degree murder after his first trial in 2017, but the conviction was overturned in June 2020 after the Court of Appeal found that a mistrial should have been granted.

Last month, Justice James Chipman ruled that Sandeson be ineligible for parole for 15 years — though Sandeson has already been in custody for seven years and eight months, so he will be eligible for parole in 2030.

Story continues below advertisement

In a handwritten notice of appeal filed Monday, Sandeson claimed Chipman erred in law by failing to remedy an abuse in process.

Sandeson also said the trial judge failed to find that his charter rights had been violated under Section 8 of the charter, which states that “everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”

The notice of appeal did not provide details of Sandeson’s claims, but in his initial appeal of the 2017 trial, he complained that he was detained prior to his first interview and denied a right to counsel, that his cellphone was illegally searched and seized and that his apartment was illegally searched.

In his most recent appeal, Sandeson requested that a stay of proceedings be issued in regards to the alleged abuse in process, or that evidence obtained under the alleged breach of his charter rights be excluded.

Advertisement

You are viewing an Accelerated Mobile Webpage.

View Original Article