It’s not uncommon for a defendant’s rap lyrics to be used as evidence in ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ and GTA criminal trials, despite criticism that their introduction can reinforce anti-Black bias and impact the fairness of the proceedings.
But the judge presiding in a just-finished ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ murder trial took the unusual step of excluding a rap song that the prosecution argued supported the motive for murder, agreeing with the defence that it was too prejudicial and “not relevant to an issue at trial.â€
On Wednesday evening, jurors convicted ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ rapper Dayne Sitladeen, 32, not of first-degree murder but manslaughter in the death of Blain Grindley, 26. He was fatally shot in his chest around 1 p.m. on May 1, 2019, at a townhouse unit of an Etobicoke housing complex. A sentencing hearing is set for Dec. 6.
Wanted on a Canada-wide warrant after the shooting, Sitladeen fled to the United States where he was later arrested in Minnesota with 67 handguns in a car. He pleaded guilty to his U.S. charges in December 2021, was sentenced to 78 months in prison and was extradited to face trial in ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½. His co-accused in the U.S. gun case was also wanted for a North York kidnapping.
The Crown’s theory was that Grindley was executed by three masked men who went to the townhouse where he lived and shot him dead, leaving behind a quantity of narcotics and $10,000.
Police did not identify the shooter. A co-accused, Michael Smith, was earlier convicted of manslaughter and another man, Andre Douse — captured on security video buying masks and gloves in a dollar store, and driving the men to and from the complex on John Garland Boulevard — was acquitted of first-degree murder. A third man at the scene was never identified.
While Sitladeen was present, he did not shoot Grindley, nor did he have a gun, defence lawyer Monte MacGregor said during this closing address earlier this week. He referred to surveillance video showing his client — dressed in a distinctive Champion tracksuit that he was also wearing when he was arrested six weeks later — carrying a pipe or crowbar. Grindley had no injuries other than the fatal gunshot wound, he noted. If Sitladeen was guilty of anything, it could only be manslaughter.
MacGregor also argued there were multiple possible theories based on the evidence and lack of evidence about what exactly occurred, including a break and enter, a robbery or an attempt to collect a debt. Sitladeen did not testify.
The verdict means jurors, who deliberated for a day, found the shooting was not an intentional, planned murder, MacGregor said Thursday. “The jury got it right. I wasn’t murder, it was manslaughter — that’s critical. Dayne did not shoot this man. The jury found he was there but he was not the killer.â€
Sitladeen is well known in the city’s underground rap scene, where he performs as Yung Lava. Before the jury portion of the trial began last week, the prosecution asked the judge if jurors could hear that one of Sitladeen’s songs — titled “Real Spit (Wass Gang Diss)†— was posted to YouTube on the day of the shooting. The lyrics, which include references to gangs and threats of violence, “appear to refer to Mr. Sitladeen and his associates committing a murder,†according to written materials filed in court by the prosecution.
It was just too great a coincidence, Crown attorney Paul Zambonini argued. He also asked the judge to admit evidence that Sitladeen was a member of the Jamestown Crips and that the killing was part of ongoing gang warfare. A ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ guns and gang police officer was proposed as an expert witness to testify about gangs and “translate†the “Real Spit†lyrics.
For example, the lyric “sliding down†means to try “to incite violence or confrontation†by going to a rival group’s neighbourhood, the officer wrote in his report prepared for the court.
But during MacGregor’s cross-examination of the proposed expert, the officer acknowledged that “Real Spit†was actually produced in 2017 and that someone other than Sitladeen posted it the day Grindley was killed.
In addition, MacGregor told the judge there were no other facts or pieces of evidence that supported a gang-related execution. None of the participants were known gang members and there was no evidence of any prior animus or even relationship between any of the parties, MacGregor told the judge.
In a pretrial ruling, Superior Court Justice Alfred O’Marra wrote while there was evidence based on Sitladeen’s lyrics and performances to support that he is a member of a street gang involved in violent activities, there was no evidence that his two accomplices — or the victim — were involved in gang activity.
“The lyrics in ‘Real Spit’ and other rap song(s) provide no evidence of any animus or motivation for the shooting of Mr. Grindley,†O’Marra wrote in his Sept. 15 ruling. He also ruled inadmissible the expert gang evidence.
MacGregor called the ruling well-founded.
“I was able to demonstrate other musicians, who are clearly artists, not gangsters, write lyrics that are substantially similar to what Mr. Sitladeen wrote, talking about gangs, gang members and rivalries,†MacGregor said outside the courthouse this week waiting for the verdict.
The song “didn’t tie to a motive, it didn’t tie to any of the participants, so how could it be used other than in a negative way to make him look like a bad person?â€
There are instances, however, where lyrics could be properly used if it can be demonstrated that there is “direct applicability to the underlying facts or issues that arise in a case, and the person who has written the song … (has) the opportunity to refute that,†MacGregor said.
“If people make admissions in public about what they’ve done, indirectly or directly, then the Crown has an opportunity to put that in court because that can help them demonstrate their guilt.â€
In 2017, the province’s highest court was satisfied that a judge in a 2012 ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ murder trial properly allowed a single rap lyric after finding it was relevant to the motive for murder because it demonstrated that the accused subscribed to the code of silence.
The victim in the case was shot and killed in retaliation for violating the code by talking to police and testifying in court. The Supreme Court of Canada wouldn’t hear the appeal, which means that decision stands as law in Ontario.
Update - Oct. 6, 2023: This article was edited from a previous version to include the date of the sentencing hearing.
To join the conversation set a first and last name in your user profile.
Sign in or register for free to join the Conversation