‘Drunken intent is still intent’: Crown argues Cody Chubey guilty of murder

Warning: This story contains graphic details of a murder scene.

While the defence says the ability to form intent while intoxicated is the key issue at a Melfort murder trial, the Crown says drunken intent is still intent.

Cody Chubey is charged with first-degree murder of Danielle Dobersheck, his long-term partner. He beat her to death in a motel room on March 10, 2024. She was 30 years old and a mother of three.

The lawyers made their closing arguments on Thursday in Melfort Court of King’s Bench.

Defence lawyer Peter Abrametz said repeatedly that Chubey, 38, accepts responsibility for killing Dobersheck, but argued he should be found guilty of manslaughter, not murder.

Chubey testified on Wednesday that he had no memory of killing her because he was blacked out from drinking alcohol.

Abrametz said the way Chubey reacted when police arrived at the scene showed he had no consciousness of guilt. He was calm and said he had gotten into an argument with his girlfriend.

Cody Chubey arrives at Melfort Court of King’s Bench on Oct. 7, 2026, to testify in his own defence at his first-degree murder trial. (Hannah Spray/CBC)

Court heard Chubey was sitting in a motel room where the walls were covered in blood. Dobersheck was dead in the bathroom, along with the bloody snow shovel that Chubey used at the end of the assault.

“We respectfully submit that … there was no intent to cause death,” Abrametz said.

Evidence shows intent, Crown argues

Case law has established that “drunken intent is still intent,” Crown prosecutor Jennifer Souter argued. 

Regardless, no evidence was presented about how much Chubey had to drink that night, other than his claim that he blacked out, Souter noted, calling his testimony not credible or reliable.

“That said, if the court accepts the accused’s testimony that he has no memory of the incident, the Crown says that the accused is confounding an inability to form memory with Mr. Chubey not forming a specific intent to commit murder,” Souter said.

“The two concepts are not synonymous.”

She argued the evidence showed that Chubey intended to kill Dobersheck.

Danielle Dobersheck died on March 10, 2024, in Melfort. (Danielle Dobersheck/Facebook)

Souter cited an audio recording played in court, made by the couple staying in the room next door, that captured the sounds of Chubey beating Dobersheck.

In it, Chubey accused Dobersheck of cheating on him and demanded she tell him who it was with. He repeatedly said, “I’ll kill you,” while she tearfully denied cheating on him and screamed for help.

Souter also argued that Chubey killed Dobersheck while unlawfully confining her in the motel room. A homicide committed during an unlawful confinement elevates the crime to first-degree murder.

She cited testimony from the man in the room next door, who said he heard Chubey tell Dobersheck she wasn’t going to go to the hospital, but that she should go to the bathroom and clean herself up.

Then, the man heard Chubey get angry again, after he couldn’t find his phone. He said he heard banging from where the bathroom was.

When police arrived, they found the locked bathroom door had been kicked in.

Souter cited testimony from the motel owner that the door wasn’t damaged before that night, and from a police officer who said a bloody footprint on the door was likely from someone doing a “donkey kick” with their back to the door, to force it open.

Souter argued there are two pathways to a conviction of first-degree murder on the issue of unlawful confinement — if the judge finds Dobersheck couldn’t leave the motel room due to Chubey’s control of her, or if he finds that she was seeking refuge in the bathroom.

Justice Sean Sinclair said he would need some time to consider the arguments.

His decision is scheduled for Dec. 11.