Prosecutors have told a jury that all the evidence pointed towards Kiari Tucker being the man who fatally shot Morlan Steede in 2017.

Carrington Mahoney, for the Crown, highlighted evidence from phone records, gunshot residue evidence and CCTV footage comparing the defendant’s manner of walking to that of the suspect in the case.

“It is your duty, having listened to the evidence, observed the evidence, considered the evidence and considered the law that His Lordship will give you, to ensure that the guilty don’t escape from the consequences of their actions,” Mr Mahoney said.

Mr Tucker, 27, has denied the November 3, 2017, murder of Mr Steede, 35, along with the use of a firearm to commit an indictable offence.

CCTV footage played during the trial showed Mr Tucker and others on Court Street hours before the fatal shooting of Mr Steede.

At about 9.11pm that day, CCTV footage from Deepdale appeared to show a figure in dark clothing and a helmet walking through the area.

The same camera later recorded a man in a white shirt running down One Way Deepdale followed by a person dressed all in black at about 9.40pm.

As they ran, flashes of light were seen to come from the outstretched arm of the person in black.

The court heard that Mr Steede suffered four gunshot wounds, with the fatal shot passing through his left lung and heart.

Mr Tucker was arrested the following afternoon after police found him under a pile of clothing in a bedroom closet.

Delivering his closing statement, Mr Mahoney said that the position in which Mr Tucker was found by officers suggested a guilty conscience, noting that Mr Tucker had not answered multiple calls to step out of the apartment.

Mr Mahoney asked: “Was he playing hide-and-seek with the police, or was he trying to elude being arrested or detained knowing what he did the night before?”

The prosecutor also highlighted particles characteristic of gunshot residue that were discovered on Mr Tucker’s hands and items of clothing.

While Charles Richardson, for the defence, suggested that the particles could have been transferred on to the defendant by the armed officers who located him, Mr Mahoney noted that two of the officers had not fired their weapons in months.

He said: “What are the odds that the particles would still be on them but not on the defendant who was, we say, discharging the firearm the night before?”

Mr Mahoney also said that while the cleaning processes used by the police do not destroy the particles, the purpose is to remove them — and the evidence suggested that it did precisely that.

He said that Mr Tucker had more than enough time to travel from Court Street to Deepdale and change his clothes between when he was last seen on CCTV and when the suspect was seen before the fatal shooting.

He argued that the defendant also had enough time to change again before he returned to Court Street.

“He had more than sufficient time to change his pants and change his sneakers,” Mr Mahoney said.

He argued that Mr Tucker had to change his clothing to prevent being recognised at the scene, having previously “staked out” the location earlier that evening.

However, he said when Mr Tucker was next seen on Court Street, he appeared to be sweating and acting nervous.

“During the day he was wearing a jacket, but at night he’s walking around without his jacket and appears to be sweating profusely,” he said.

Mr Mahoney added that Mr Tucker would have had time, either that evening or the following morning, to retrieve the items of clothing he had worn during the shooting.

He told the court that cellphone evidence was consistent with Mr Tucker being in the area, and that the defendant’s comments after his arrest suggested that he had falsely claimed he was at home at the time of the shooting.

“We see him on the CCTV footage,” Mr Mahoney said. “At the relevant time he was in town, going up and down Court Street and all over the place.”

The trial continues.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case