“Vicious” murder or self-defense? Murder trial of 14-year-old Brampton boy concludes

A Brampton jury knows who killed 14-year-old Riley Driver-Martin. But was it murder?

According to the Crown, two twin drug dealers deliberately lured the boy into a “vicious murder” on a catwalk near his Clarkson-area home.

Driver-Martin had just taken in twins Nicholas and Mark Mahabir with his grandparents earlier on the night of December 6, 2018, and when the boy later came out to meet the brothers, he did so unarmed, a said Crown Attorney David D’Iorio. the jury on Thursday in their closing arguments at the trial of the Mahabir brothers this week.

Even though Nicholas Mahabir had threatened days earlier to rob the boy in retaliation for ongoing drug debts and ‘anger and jealousy’ involving Mahabir’s girlfriend, Driver-Martin didn’t expect trouble when he caught up with the twins outside around 11:30 a.m. pm, D’Iorio said.

The boy thought he had “got himself out of trouble for his disrespect and his relationship” with the girlfriend, D’Iorio said. “When Riley got to the end of the catwalk, he was attacked and stabbed multiple times.”

D’Iorio noted that only Driver-Martin suffered defensive injuries, and evidence suggests he was the one who was attacked.

“His phone was taken and he was left for dead,” the prosecutor said.

The Mahabir twins have both pleaded not guilty to second degree murder.

In closing arguments this week, Nicholas Mahabir’s lawyer, Carlos Rippell, argued his client was acting in self-defence.

At trial, Mahabir, 23, testified that he stabbed Driver-Martin but had no intention of killing him, saying the boy threw himself on him after he refused requests to the teenager for more drugs.

“It was a tragedy that was unplanned. It was an outcome that no one anticipated,” Rippell told the jury.

The altercation happened because Driver-Martin ‘really wanted more drugs’ and was frustrated that his grandparents had asked the Mahabirs – who had been drinking and using drugs with him at the Clarkson area home — to leave, Rippell said.

Shortly after the Mahabirs left, Driver-Martin got angry, confronted his grandfather and stormed out of the house to meet the brothers to get more Xanax pills, Rippell said. .

He is the boy who called to meet the Mahabirs; they left on good terms and had no plans to meet again, Rippell said.

The resulting altercation on a footbridge near Meadow Park was a “brief, spontaneous fight between two friends impaired by drugs and alcohol,” Rippell said, adding that Driver-Martin wanted the pills so badly that he was ready to fight the Mahabirs to Catch them.

Rippell added: “Nothing that happened in the bedroom before the Mahabirs left is consistent with the planning or intent to commit murder, to commit robbery, within 30 minutes of their departure. of the House.”

In his closing argument, attorney David Midanik told the jury that his client, Mark Mahabir, “is guilty of absolutely nothing”.

He did not participate in any way or help his brother during the brief scuffle, the attorney said.

According to Nicholas Mahabir’s own testimony, the knife was his, not Mark’s, Midanik said.

“There is not a single witness who said he participated in the stabbing,” the lawyer said, he said, asking the jury to acquit his client.

“Mark, according to Nicholas, had nothing to do with it.”

At trial, Nicholas Mahabir testified that things quickly escalated after the teenager “tried to reach for my bag”.

“He pushed me,” he said. “Before I could push him away, he punched me in the face.”

Prosecutor D’Iorio called attention to the brothers’ conduct after the murder, including ensuring that Driver-Martin’s phone was erased, destroyed, and the pieces discarded; delete messages from their cell phones; throw the weapon; and making efforts to silence others who were aware of their animosity towards Driver-Martin.

Mark Mahabir “at least provided the knife to Nicholas” and should be found also responsible for the murder of Driver-Martin, D’Iorio told the jury.

Judge William LeMay will now give final legal instructions to the jury before they are sequestered to begin deliberations.


Conversations are the opinions of our readers and are subject to the Code of conduct. The Star does not share these opinions.

Leave a Comment