Closing arguments: Ben Stiler's Supreme Court murder trial nears conclusion

The prosecution and defence presented their closing arguments in Stiler's Supreme Court murder trial on Wednesday, November 8.

Benjamin Paul Stiler is accused of shooting Duwayne Johnson with a sawn-off 12 gauge shotgun outside a Woodland Street house party in Wodonga in the early hours of Sunday, January 16, 2022.

In the case, there is no dispute that Stiler caused the death of Mr Johnson.

The questions lie in whether or not the gun was discharged intentionally, and if so, was it with murderous intent.

The final element of consideration is whether or not Stiler acted in self defence.

To establish a deliberate discharge, prosecutor Patrick Bourke, KC, leaned on the testimony of ballistics expert Jonathon Bamford.

"Mr Bamford told you that this gun was in good working order, the safety switch worked, the barrel selector worked, the breach worked properly, and this gun discharged properly upon the pressure of the trigger," Mr Bourke said.

"That was the only method by which that gun discharged in his testing - pulling the trigger.

"It didn't fire when he dropped it; it didn't fire when he whacked it with a mallet.

"This gun worked exactly how it was designed to."

Defence lawyer Leighton Gwynn disputed the argument, saying the test conditions didn't mimic the incident.

Mr Bourke argued that if the gun did go off by accident, Stiler would have mentioned the fact to the many acquaintances he confided in in the hours and days following the shooting.

"He said to (Shannon) Martini he saw a bunch of men coming out of the house with knives and his first intention, or reaction, was to shoot," Mr Bourke said.

"He told (Stacey) Haining, 'I went to fire a warning shot and somehow it fired into the group instead'.

"So out of all those people that he spoke to, the accused didn't say to one single person that the gun just went off.

"Not once did he give any explanations such as that."

The prospect of Stiler firing a warning shot that went awry was disputed by Mr Bourke with more evidence from Mr Bamford.

"Look at the injuries suffered by Mr Johnson," Mr Bourke said.

"The centre of this circular injury pattern is just above the right nipple - the entire shot pattern strikes him.

Mr Bourke argued the downward trajectory of the bullets suggested a direct line of fire, Mr Johnson standing no more than 4.5 metres away.

The third element centres on Stiler's intent to kill.

That, Mr Bourke said, relies on the state of mind of the accused during and after the incident.

The defence contended that Stiler didn't intend to kill Mr Johnson, citing Shannon Martini's testimony that Stiler appeared shocked and "went pale" when he learned of the victim's death.

"The fact that he goes pale when he heard someone had died, does not align with the theory he did what he did with murderous intent," Mr Gwynn said.

The prosecution disputed this interpretation, suggesting that Stiler's shock was not due to Mr Johnson's death but rather to the situation he found himself in.

"Not knowing whether or not Duwayne Johnson had been killed, does not equate to 'I did not intend to kill him or cause really serious injury'," Mr Bourke said.

He used Stiler's "flight" from police as an example of his intent to kill, as well as the words he told his mother at Beechworth - "Mum, I'm f----d, did you bring any money?"

Mr Gwynn argued that Stiler didn't flee because of fear of arrest, but out of a fear of "reprisal".

"(His) flight represents mortal fear, not a guilty mind," Mr Gwynn said.

"He is fleeing to get away from the risk of reprisal with the belief of if he goes into custody he may be seriously harmed, if not killed.

"It's not an acknowledgement of wrong doing or of intention."

Witness testimony states that Stiler drove himself and two female passengers to the Woodland Street party after his cousin, Braiden Stiler, asked for help, saying he felt intimidated and threatened.

When they arrived, Stiler's cousin Braiden approached the car and said that someone had a "beef" with him.

Moments later, Mr Johnson came out of the house and approached the car with three men following behind him.

Stiler then got out of the car and shot Mr Johnson in the chest, despite not knowing who he was.

Mr Johnson was found with a pair of scissors in his back pocket, and his best friend, Jarrod Blanco, who was trailing behind him, admitted he had a kitchen knife down his pants at the the time of the shooting.

However, no witness said they saw a weapon as the group approached the vehicle.

In regards to the "beef", Mr Bourke said, "you can't have a serious beef with someone standing in front of you that you don't even know."

And in relation to Stiler's claim that the group approached him brandishing weapons, Mr Bourke said, "if you look at all the evidence you can be satisfied the accused did not hold the belief that he needed to defend himself from his own death or serious injury."

"Even if he did, his actions were way over the top.

"There was no good reason for the accused to shoot Mr Johnson, there was no good reason, there was no reason at all."

Defence lawyer Mr Gwynn said that his client "believed that his actions were necessary for the preservation of himself and possibly his cousin."

"People talk about the agony of the moment; unprovoked, unanticipated and out of control," he said.

"Ben Stiler only has seconds to make a judgement. He, unlike us, had little time to compute and to work out what was going on in that immediate and unpredictable situation.

"Just because there is the tragedy here of a death, does not mean there is a crime."

In self defence, one must perceive an imminent danger of death or "really serious injury" and respond in a reasonable manner to the threat.

The trial continues.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: