Sudbury woman guilty of second-degree murder in gruesome stabbing death

Guilty verdict in Sudbury woman's murder trial WATCH: A 43-year-old Sudbury woman has been found guilty of second-degree murder in a brutal stabbing death in December 2020.

Warning: This story includes graphic descriptions of a murder scene many will find upsetting. Reader caution strongly is advised.

A Sudbury jury has found Felicity Altiman guilty of second-degree murder in the December 2020 stabbing death of Robert Keskinen, 75, after two days of deliberations.

Altiman, 43, wore a black, long-sleeved casual shirt with white stripes down both arms and appeared animated as the verdict was announced Wednesday afternoon.

She was seen swinging back and forth in her chair as the foreman announced the verdict, and each juror – six men and six women -- confirmed they had voted guilty.

Altiman, who has been in jail since her arrest Jan. 7, 2021, appeared visibly upset and teary-eyed as courtroom security placed her in handcuffs to leave the courtroom.

Second-degree murder comes with an automatic sentence of life in prison, but the judge gets to determine how long she must spend in incarceration before she becomes eligible for parole.

Justice Dan Cornell asked each juror for a sentencing recommendation, saying they could recommend Altiman serve a minimum of 10 years to a maximum of 25 years before she could be eligible for release on parole.

They returned later with various recommendations, and Cornell then thanked them for their service to the community.

A date for sentencing will be set Nov. 19 and is expected to be scheduled in 2025.

Defence attorney Steven Hinkson, from Toronto, requested that pre-sentence and Gladue reports are prepared for use during sentencing.

Several members of Keskinen's family were in the courtroom when the verdict was delivered.

They declined to comment until after the sentencing hearing, when victim impact statements will be delivered.

The guilty verdict comes after three weeks of testimony. The jury began deliberations around noon Tuesday on whether Altiman killed Keskinen sometime on Dec. 24 or Dec. 25, 2020.

Keskinen was found dead in his Kathleen Street apartment on Boxing Day 2020 during a wellness check. He had more than 100 stab wounds and his scrotum was cut off and stuffed in his mouth.

Juror questions

Earlier Wednesday, Cornell called the Crown and defence back to the courtroom after receiving a note containing three questions from the jury:

What does state of mind mean? What constitutes reasonable doubt? For example, does 80 per cent mean reasonable doubt? How far off can theories be made from the facts?

Cornell read the questions aloud in the order in which they were written and the three parties discussed the wording the judge would use to answer them without the jury present.

Cornell pointed out that the jury was first asked to determine whether the Crown proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

If they are considering the state of mind, he said, they should have already made a decision about reasonable doubt.

Hinkson argued that the judge should just answer the questions that the jury asked and not go into detail or tell them how to address the questions.

Cornell told the jury when they returned to the courtroom around 11:30 a.m. that they must first decide if Altiman killed Keskinen.

Hinkson also disagreed with the judge and Crown on giving the jury two pieces of evidence as examples but was ultimately overruled.

"Two pieces of evidence that may be of particular importance: If Ms. Altiman stabbed him more than 100 times, can there be any doubt about what she intended?" Cornell said.

"The other piece of evidence on this point that struck me of particular importance was the after-the-fact conduct when she told her brother that ‘something bad has happened and I may be in trouble.'"

The answer to the state of mind question included the understanding of intent.

"Either she intended to cause his death or cause bodily harm that would cause his death or that death was likely to result and would have been reckless if death would occur or not," Cornell said.

"(If) you found Ms. Altiman stabbed him, the evidence shows he was stabbed more than 100 times and cut off his scrotum, what conclusion can you draw from that?"

All parties agreed that the judge can’t offer a percentage in relation to reasonable doubt, citing case law that proof is more than the balance of probabilities but doesn’t have to be absolute certainty.

"It can’t be imaginary, far-fetched or frivolous. It must be reasonable," Cornell explained to the jury.

"Not based on sympathy or prejudice, based on reason and common sense. More than that, it is a doubt that logically arises from the evidence or lack of evidence. The probable or likely guilt is not enough."

Absolute certainty nearly impossible

He explained that the Crown does not have to prove anything with absolute certainty, as that is nearly impossible.

In response to the jury’s last question about how far off theories can be made, he said "The simple answer is they cannot."

"Theories are not facts," Cornell said.

"You must rely on the evidence that came forward. This is largely a circumstantial case so you will have to draw inferences."

READ: What the jury didn't hear in Sudbury murder trial