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

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 a Sudbury man.

Felicity Alitman, 43, is accused of murdering her 75-year-old neighbour Robert Keskinen in December 2020 in his Kathleen Street apartment in Sudbury. (Facebook)

Altiman, 43, was animated as the verdict was announced Wednesday, 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.

Justice Dan Cornell then asked for a sentencing recommendation, saying that a sentence of at least 10 years and a maximum of 25 before Altiman 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.

The guilty verdict comes after three weeks of testimony. The jury began deliberations around noon Tuesday on whether Altiman killed Robert Keskinen, 75, 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.

Altiman has been in jail since her arrest Jan. 7, 2021.

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?

The body of Robert Keskinen was found in his Kathleen Street apartment on Boxing Day 2020. He had been stabbed to death. (Obituary photo)

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.

Defence attorney Steven 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.

Greater Sudbury Police are asking the public for information to find out who is responsible for a murder in the city on Boxing Day. The body of Robert Keskinen, 75, was discovered in a Kathleen Street residence around 2:20 p.m. (File)

"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.

• Download the CTV News app now
• Get local breaking news alerts
• Daily newsletter with the top local stories emailed to your inbox

"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