DEFENCE: COP MADE ERRORS IN JUDGEMENT

OPP Const. Maurice Morrissette may have been guilty of errors of
judgement, but his conduct didn't represent a serious or marked
departure to constitute a criminal breach of trust, a Superior Court
judge heard Monday.

"I have no doubt some of the things he's done constitute regulatory
or Police Act problems," James Forrd, Morrissette's lawyer said in
his closing argument.

"But, you can't add up a bunch of things that are less than stellar
and raise great suspicions and then conclude he breached his trust."

Mistakes and errors of judgment do not comprise criminal culpability, he added.

Morrissette, 40, has pleaded not guilty to charges of bribery, breach
of trust, obstructing justice and trafficking in marijuana.

The charges were laid following a joint 2005 OPP-RCMP investigation
into the illegal drug and cigarette trade in the Prescott area.

Morrissette and retired Prescott police officer Bruce Perrin were the
original targets of the investigation, but it expanded to include
several other local street dealers who were subsequently charged and sentenced.

Forrd noted the undercover probe turned up no evidence Morrissette
was involved in selling contraband cigarettes or trafficking in
cocaine, so the question for investigators became "what's left and
what gets caught in the net? That's what we have here."

The defence lawyer said the Crown's case against his client was
largely circumstantial and fell far short of proving the charges
beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court had only "a partial picture" of what had happened, in part
because the prosecution didn't call certain witnesses who could
"solidify and confirm exactly what was going on," he said.

Forrd then went through the five main counts against Morrissette,
pointing out what he saw as holes in the Crown's case.

On the trafficking in marijuana charge, Forrd said there was no
evidence the constable gave drugs to anyone. When stopped by Ottawa
police in September 2006, the drugs were found in the possession of
Morrissette's wife, not the accused, he said.

On the bribery count that Morrissette provided drug dealer Mehrdad
Kazerkermani with information in exchange for drugs, Forrd said there
was no "quid pro quo."

Even if Kazerkermani supplied the cop with drugs, there was no
evidence Morrissette provided information in exchange for them.

Forrd conceded Morrissette drove Kazerkermani to a wake in Ottawa in
violation of the convicted drug dealer's conditional sentence.

However, he said the Crown must prove Morrissette did it wilfully
intending to obstruct the course of justice.

He noted there was no criminal proceeding taking place at the time.
Further, he said Morrissette told investigators in a statement
following his arrest that he didn't believe he had done anything
wrong and that if he had, he wouldn't have driven Kazerkermani.

Forrd added his client was not on duty at the time and that he left
the funeral home with Kazerkermani as soon as learning there was some
confusion over whether he was entitled to be there.

On the second obstruct charge, he said there was no direct evidence
he warned the Kazerkermani's of an impending drug raid on their home
near Prescott.

While telephone calls were exchanged, both Morrissette and Tania
Kazerkermani denied giving or receiving any advance notice of the
search warrant.

While the Crown alleged several incidents where Morrissette breached
his trust, Forrd said the essence of the charge is that he had to use
the office for a purpose contrary to the public good and no hard
evidence existed.

"There is a lot of suspicion about what was going on and what was
being said, but the key issue is how much the Crown has proved he
used his office," he said.

"I suggest not much."

Forrd noted while Morrissette may have purchased marijuana, he never
made buys while on duty and that he never used his position as an
police officer to make drug deals.

In a brief reply, prosecutor Marc Marcotte reiterated the Crown's
position that Morrissette repeatedly breached his sworn duty as a cop
by associating with known criminals and providing them with
information both while on and off duty.

"In my view, these are not minor errors in judgment and they do
constitute a marked departure of the conduct we expect out of a
police officer," he said.

"At worst, Mr. Morrissette knew what he was doing. At best, he was
wilfully blind or reckless ... and if we do not keep police officers
responsible for such actions, the community at large will lose
respect for the institutions."

Superior Court Justice Robert Maranger will give his decision August 24.