Connor Whitehead, 16, was shot dead at the party in the northern Christchurch suburb of Casebrook on November 5, 2021.
A man who fatally shot an innocent bystander at a party fired the shot in an attempt to intimidate and threaten a group of uninvited partygoers and never intended to kill him, his lawyer says.
Connor Whitehead, 16, was shot dead at a party in the northern Christchurch suburb of Casebrook on November 5, 2021.
Two men, Daniel Nelson Sparks and Joshua David Craig Smith, are charged with murdering Whitehead.
On Monday, both men’s lawyers told the jury their clients had elected not to call or give any evidence. The jury then heard the closing addresses from the Crown and both men’s lawyers before Justice Melanie Harland. The pair pleaded not guilty to the charges before the trial began.
The Crown alleges both accused responded to a call for help from Sparks’ son, as the party got out of control and he was threatened, by arming themselves with loaded firearms – a Stevens shotgun and a Mossberg shotgun – in Smith’s VW Golf.
About 11pm the two accused arrived at the party. Sparks’ son pointed out the group of people acting aggressively towards him. Sparks approached them and there was a verbal argument. Gang signs were pulled and there was yelling.
Two shots were eventually fired, one by each of the firearms, one by each of the defendants.
The two shots were about six seconds apart. The Crown said the most likely scenario was that Smith fired the fatal shot that struck Whitehead and that Sparks fired a shot from the Mossberg into the air, likely from the car.
Whitehead was shot in the chest. His injuries were not survivable.
In his closing address, Smith’s lawyer, James Rapley, KC, said the trial had been “difficult and distressing”.
“Connor Whitehead was totally innocent, his killing was shocking, senseless, and should never have happened.”
Smith accepted it was his fault and that he was responsible for Whitehead’s death, but that it was manslaughter, not murder.
“Mr Smith never intended to kill Connor. Mr Smith never intended to cause Connor harm, and he never thought that Connor or anyone else would be likely to die.”
Rapley said the Crown had not proved and could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Smith did intend to kill.
In his interview with police, Smith lied and said he did not fire any shots. Rapley said members of the jury needed to take care they did not jump to conclusions from his interview.
He said the Crown argued Smith was guilty of murder in three different ways. That Smith intended to kill Whitehead, or that he intended to cause him bodily harm and knew that firing a gun was likely to cause death and knowing that consciously ran the risk he might die.
Alternatively, the Crown argued that Smith discharged the firearm with the object of threatening to cause grievous bodily harm and when he did that he knew that firing a shotgun was likely to cause someone to die.
Rapley said none of the partygoers saw exactly where the shot went. Many wrongly thought it went up in the air and none of them saw Whitehead get shot.
Forensic evidence suggested Connor Whitehead could have been crouched down low on the fence. Rapley said it was very hard to see in the dark driveway and for Smith to target Whitehead he would have had to see him.
“There’s no evidence at all Connor was targeted, he was an innocent bystander.”
Rapley added the Crown had not proved that when Smith fired the shotgun he knew it was likely to cause the death of a partygoer.
He argued Smith was trying to scare and intimate the uninvited partygoers.
He said why two grown men would take guns to a party was “hard to fathom” and was wrong, but just because they took them did not mean they intended to use them.
Smith was “reckless” and “foolish” in shooting the gun hoping the crowd would disperse, he said.
“The fact he caused Connor’s death does not make him guilty of murder.
“Mr Smith did not intend to shoot Connor, he intended to shoot away from the crowd in the street, he didn’t know when he shot the gun it was likely to cause death.”
Sparks’ lawyer, Donald Matthews, said Whitehead’s death was an “absolutely senseless tragedy”.
“When Mr Sparks answered his son’s call, he didn’t think that anyone would die. He didn’t intend for anyone to die, didn’t foresee anyone would die.”
Sparks could not and must not be found guilty of murder as a party, Matthews said.
“When the men arrived he exited the car, he was unarmed and set about trying to cool things down. The fatal shot was then fired by Mr Smith in circumstances that were entirely unexpected and unanticipated.”
Whitehead’s death went “well beyond any common purpose”.
The jury could not safely conclude Sparks knew a killing could well happen when they went to Heaphy Place.
Matthews said it was not disputed Sparks was a gang member.
“He’s more than a gang member, he’s a father, a partner, a valued employee.”
Matthews said “all hell had broken loose” at the party before the men arrived.
Sparks was “completely wrong” taking a firearm to the party. However, his actions had to be taken in the context of taking a panicked call and acting “impulsively”.
Evidence suggested that from Sparks’ perspective, things had calmed down a little when Smith fired the shot.
“Mr Sparks is an idiot, there’s no getting away from that, he responded foolishly, rashly,” Matthews said.
Crown prosecutor Barnaby Hawes said in his closing address that what happened could only be described as a “tragic case”.
“A young man killed senselessly at a party by a man he never met.”
The main issue for the jury, he said, was whether each of the two men would be found guilty of murder or manslaughter.
He said the defence cases were that Whitehead’s death was an “accident” and not foreseen by either defendant at any time.
However, they took two loaded shotguns to a 15-year-old’s birthday party.
“This was on any view a gross overreaction to what was occurring.”
Taking the “lethal weapons” to a party where some were intoxicated, acting erratically and violently was “always going to end badly”.
The two men travelled together, they confronted the uninvited “troublemakers together”, they each fired shots, left together, and they rang an associate to report the “run-in with the Crips” and then they buried the guns together.
“While one man fired the fatal shot, I suggest both men are criminally responsible for what happened.”
He said the Crown case against each man was different. Smith was the “principal offender”.
Before the fatal shooting Smith and Sparks agreed on a common goal, Hawes said.
“It’s not suggested an actual plan to murder or kill Connor, or anyone else. But there was a common and unlawful goal of travelling together to Heaphy Place with firearms and to confront and threaten unwanted partygoers.”
In intercepted communications after the shooting, Smith tells an associate Sparks’ son was being attacked by Crips.
“We shot over there. And then f****** 30 or 40 of them come out of nowhere and then we were getting surrounded by them, so we popped off some shots bro and we might’ve shot one of them.”
Later in the call, Sparks said: “And Josh can’t remember like f***, how high he f******, popped off a round, doesn’t seem to think he hit any, anyone … but on Facebook it’s saying that there’s, um, that someone got shot.”
Hawes also mentioned Smith’s interview with police where he “lied from start to finish”.
“I suggest you can’t accept anything he says in his interview that’s not verified by other witnesses.”
In his interview he said he did not fire any shots and shifted the blame on Sparks, Hawes said.
“Mr Smith’s account is demonstrably false and tells you nothing about his state of mind when he fired the fatal shot.”
Smith reported his car stolen after the shooting, assisted in burying the firearms, was likely involved in burning other evidence and lied about his involvement in the shooting.
“Every aspect of his statement is untrue,” he said.
“I suggest he simply cannot tell the truth about what happened that night”.
If the jury was unsure Smith was shooting at Whitehead because he either didn’t see him because it was too dark or didn’t look where he was shooting when he fired he could nevertheless be found guilty of murder, Hawes said.
As for Sparks, the Crown case said there were five aspects, including that the offence Sparks was alleged to be a party to was committed by a principal offender, there was a shared agreement to carry out something unlawful, they agreed to help each other and participate to achieve their common unlawful goal and that Sparks knew the offence was a probable consequence of carrying out the common purpose.
Asked in his police interview why he took a gun, Sparks said: “Warning shot maybe? To scare everyone off, that was the intention”.
Justice Harland will sum up the case to the jury on Tuesday.