Justice for Sammy: Update on the Appeal Process
We want to share an important update on the appeal in Sammy’s case (R. v. Lewis). The Crown Attorney has approved the request to appeal the manslaughter verdict. The file has now been forwarded to the Director of the Crown Law Office – Criminal, who will decide whether the appeal will proceed to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
This is a significant step forward, and we are grateful for the work the Crown team has done so far. Over the past five years, we have attended every court date, provided detailed information, and shared our concerns because we believe the evidence supports a finding of murder, not manslaughter. We remain patient but determined. We will continue standing up for Sammy and seeking justice for him, no matter how long it takes.
Details of the Appeal (Noted by Sam Graham Sent to the Crown)
- Premeditation / Texts / Threats (downplayed as “teenage bravado”)
“I am deeply concerned about the trial judge’s characterization of Montana Lewis’s actions and mindset as mere ‘teenage bravado’ and ‘childishly immature’ behaviour, where judge uses these terms, which downplayed the clear evidence of intent to kill. The explicit text messages sent by Lewis in real time, such as ‘I am going to kill him,’ ‘just waiting for him to get back,’ ‘he is dead,’ ‘today is his day,’ and ‘he’s done, while at the same time messaging Semiah and luring them back to the house to end my son life, followed immediately by arming himself with a knife, chasing Sam out of the side door of house , and delivering forceful, fatal stabs, demonstrate premeditation and specific intent far beyond immature boasting or anger. My 19-year-old son, Sammy, was also a young adult with his own normal teenage immaturity, yet this was not balanced or mentioned in the reasons. All men at the at age are immature but they didn’t say that in court this is normal for this age . Immaturity does not excuse lethal actions, especially when 18-year-olds are held fully accountable as adults in law (including military service with firearms). By framing these threats and actions as automatically less serious due to age and immaturity, without properly applying murder precedents on inferring intent from circumstantial evidence (threats + pursuit + lethal force), the verdict minimized the gravity of what occurred and resulted in a manslaughter finding instead of murder. This one-sided approach feels like a significant error in assessing the evidence and law, and I urge the Crown to appeal to correct it in the public interest.”
- Intoxication / Drug Claim
“Under Canadian law, voluntary intoxication can only reduce murder to manslaughter if there is real, believable evidence that it stopped the accused from forming the specific intent to kill (Criminal Code s. 229). In this case there was zero evidence Montana Lewis was drunk or high the night he killed my son. Police saw no signs. His own sister Semiah saw no signs of him being drunk or high as she was with him at home all day. Semiah only mentioned past hearsay about coke that had nothing to do with that night. Don’t forget they are twin and super close more connect then other as the defensce kept saying, so you would think Semiah would know if he was using or drunk that day. Montana said nothing about drugs or alcohol at the time or any time. No tests were done. The judge himself wrote he had ‘difficulty believing’ the huge amount Montana now claims Yet the judge still gave it partial weight and said he ‘cannot reject that its use did affect his judgment to some degree. This was an error in law. No evidence, a killer’s late, uncorroborated story cannot be used to downplay planning and intent in a murder case. The Crown must correct this mistake.”
- Intent / Forensics / Stab Wounds
“Under Canadian law, murder includes intent to cause bodily harm that the accused knows is likely to cause death and is reckless as to whether death ensues (Criminal Code s. 229(a)(ii)). The judge found Montana intended only to stab Sam to hurt him in extreme anger and vengeance, but had reasonable doubt he meant death or knew it was likely. That is called murder. Everyone knows that using a weapon on anyone can end their life. That is planned and deliberate right there alone. That is why people general don’t do that. We use our fists. He described the fatal abdominal stab as a ‘deliberate thrust’ and suggested that if the aorta had not been struck ‘unfortunately,’ Sam could have survived, but also, he still could of died as well. Judge implying less force or accidental hit. This downplays the forensic autopsy evidence from Dr. Michael D’Agostino. The abdominal wound was a penetrating stab that tracked upward, front to back and left to right, transecting the tip of the 10th left anterior rib, injuring the left kidney and renal vein/ureter, incising the abdominal aorta on its left side (causing extensive hemorrhaging and at least 650 mL blood in the cavity with further large tissue involvement), cutting paraspinal muscle, and superficially incising the L2 vertebral body (exposing bone marrow). The arm wound tracked upwards, left to right and front to back, nearly severing the triceps muscle and scoring the humerus bone — consistent with a defensive injury. These trajectories and depth required significant force and made the injuries much more severe and lethal than a simple in-and-out stab, which could have missed the aorta entirely. This evidence shows recklessness and knowledge of likely fatal harm, not mere intent to hurt. Ignoring it is an error in law. The Crown must appeal to ensure the verdict reflects the full facts and law.”
- Knife Drop / Regret / Post-Stabbing
“Under Canadian law, a trial judge must assess the whole evidence consistently when applying reasonable doubt principles (R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742) and cannot selectively accept self-serving, uncorroborated parts of discredited testimony to downplay intent or culpability. The judge accepted Montana Lewis’s claim that he immediately ‘dropped’ or ‘released’ the knife after the stabs because he ‘did not want to continue stabbing’ Sam and felt instant regret, using this to support reasonable doubt on intent to kill. This is inconsistent with the evidence. Semiah Lewis, who was right there and never once said Montana dropped the knife, testified consistently since November 12, 2020 that she froze as Montana ran past her with the knife and made a stabbing motion; Sam raised his leg and arm in defence; they fell to the ground; she seen the knife when they fell or she grabbed it directly from her brother Montana and threw it away so he could not stab Sam again; this was a statement from the officer when Semiah was talking that very moment in front of the house, then she pulled Montana off Sam. “PULLED HIM OFF”. As we can see a clear picture Montana was still attaching my son as he was dieing. Not helping him. At that exact moment Montana told Semiah to ‘fuck off’. An off-duty officer across the street heard a man’s voice yell ‘get the fuck off of me’ and saw Montana immediately walk calmly into the front yard. Montana then told Semiah, ‘sorry I love you’ (for yelling at her earlier, not for killing Sam and his face was not in horror and shock but anger at his sister), walked to the front yard, called 911 (stating the address and hanging up), and when police arrived Montana only pointed calmly in Sam’s direction with no help offered. Police never indicating that Montana was help full in anyway or anytime. He did not assist with anything. Semiah was on the phone with 911, put pressure on the wound, and preforming CPR , which required both hands, while she was cring on the phone trying to save her boyfriend as he died in her arms. Montana showed zero remorse for my son’s death, no tears in court ever, only a tear-drop tattoo under his eye in pretrial (signaling murder to others). He had makeup on it, in trial to hid it from the new appointed Judge. The judge and Crown ignored this symbol of Murder, not an accident or mistake the symbol colour in represents that he murdered some one. But the judge heard corroborated evidence from Semiah but accepted Montana’s self-serving claim of regret instead. This selective acceptance of discredited testimony is an error in law and grounds for appeal.”
- Extreme Anger and Vengeance Motive (downplayed planning/intent)
“Under Canadian law, specific intent for murder can be inferred from circumstantial evidence such as prior threats, planning, pursuit, and the nature of the attack (R. v. Cooper, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 146; R. v. Daley, 2007 SCC 53). The judge characterized Montana Lewis’s actions as driven solely by ‘extreme anger and vengeance’ following the argument at home. using this to find reasonable doubt on intent to kill and convict only of manslaughter. This downplays significant evidence of premeditation: Montana sent explicit Snapchat threats in real time (‘I am going to kill him,’ ‘today is his day,’ ‘he’s done,’ ‘just waiting for him to get back’, armed himself with a knife before confronting Sam, chased him outside after the initial fight had ended, and inflicted two forceful penetrating stabs requiring significant force (per forensic evidence). Framing the entire incident as reactive ‘anger’ without properly weighing these planning elements ignores established law on inferring intent from words, actions, and circumstances. This selective emphasis on emotion over premeditation is an error in law. The Crown must appeal to ensure the verdict fully reflects the evidence of intent and planning.”
- Montana’s Pattern of Lying and Changing Story (should negate any credibility for his claims, showing intent)
“Under Canadian law, a pattern of inconsistent or fabricated statements by the accused can undermine credibility entirely and even serve as evidence of consciousness of guilt or intent (R. v. White, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 72; R. v. O’Brien, 2011 SCC 29). The judge found Montana Lewis’s evidence ‘unreliable and incredible’ , rejecting significant portions. Yet he selectively accepted uncorroborated self-serving claims from the same discredited source. Montana’s testimony was riddled with lies and changes: his initial statement from jail the night of the stabbing was completely different (claiming he was lying that night ), but he changed his story by trial to fit a regret/anger narrative. We witnessed him lying in court multiple times, with details shifting under cross-examination. This pattern of fabrication should have rendered all his evidence unreliable — not partially usable to create reasonable doubt on intent. Instead, his lies demonstrate consciousness of guilt and further support premeditated intent to murder my son, not impulsive immaturity. Accepting any part of this liar’s story to downplay the crime is an error in law. The Crown must appeal to correct this and ensure no weight is given to proven falsehoods.”