Crown appeals acquittal of man who was charged with murdering his wife

The Quebec Court of Appeal heard arguments Tuesday in the Crown’s appeal of a judge’s decision to acquit Ernesto Fera in a case where he was charged with killing his wife, Nadia Panarello, inside their home in Laval two decades ago.

Some of the time spent by prosecutor Alexandre Dubois during the hour he was allowed to make arguments before a panel of three judges involved the Crown’s claim that Superior Court Justice James Brunton misinterpreted evidence presented during Fera’s trial in 2021. This involves a debate on whether traces found in snow behind the couple’s home were left by the family’s golden retriever or a potential third party that, the judge concluded, the Laval police failed to rule out as Panarello’s killer.

Article content

Dubois argued a photo taken by the Lavel police proved there were no human footprints found in the snow.

In the absence of other evidence, the Crown’s theory was that Fera had the exclusive opportunity to kill his wife the morning she was stabbed.

Panarello was killed on Feb. 12, 2004 and, because of the lack of evidence, Fera was not charged until the summer of 2019. Brunton delivered his decision to acquit Fera on Dec. 15, 2021. The judge’s decision was critical of how the Laval police handled the crime scene and that this created a reasonable doubt as to whether Fera was the only person who had the opportunity to kill his wife.

On Tuesday, Dubois argued the judge misinterpreted photos and video taken by police of the couple’s backyard. The prosecutor said the traces in the snow were left by the family’s dog and that Brunton must have believed they were left by a third party who was not identified by the Laval police.

“I certainly don’t have to prove that it is impossible to walk on water (snow),” Dubois said while arguing the Laval police proved there were no human footprints found in the backyard.

Article content

In Brunton’s decision, the issue of the footprints seemed to have more to do with whether the family’s back patio door was locked the morning Panarello was killed. The judge decided the Laval police failed to prove with certainty that it was locked and that therefore the only person who could have killed the woman was already inside the house.

“As a result of these conclusions, the court concludes that there is a reasonable possibility available to the effect that an unknown third party committed the crime by entering through an unlocked rear patio door,” Brunton wrote in his decision in 2021.

One of the three appellate court judges who heard Dubois’s arguments asked the prosecutor if he was proceeding in the right manner by focusing on the traces in the snow.

“(Brunton) arrived at the conclusion that the evidence (to convict) was insufficient, the crime scene was mismanaged and your attempt to establish the exclusive opportunity to commit the crime suffered (because of the way the crime scene was handled),” the judge said, adding later that Brunton did not conclude there was indeed a third party.

Defence lawyer Isabelle Lamarche made arguments as well on Tuesday.

“You should not forget that the judge was not satisfied with the crime scene and how the crime scene was managed,” Lamarche said.

“He did an analysis, one tree at a time, saw the forest in its entirety and came to the conclusion that it was not proven that there was an opportunity exclusive to Mr. Fera.”

The judges will deliberate on the matter before reaching their decision.

pcherry@postmedia.com

Recommended from Editorial

Man found not guilty of his wife’s murder 17 years ago