A Kelowna man has lost his right to be tried by a jury of his peers after he failed to show up to court.
Brandon Hildebrand Acosta appeared in person in the B.C. Supreme Court in Kelowna to file an application to retain his right to be tried by both a judge and a jury after he did not show up at the start of his jury trial.
Hildebrand Acosta was scheduled to appear for the selection of a jury and the start of a sexual assault trial on Sept. 29, 2025. The Justice adjourned the matter to Oct. 1, 2025, anticipating the accused’s lawyers would get in touch, and Hildebrand Acosta would appear, but again failed to turn up to court.
A warrant was issued for Hildebrand Acosta’s arrest; however, it was from an unrelated shoplifting investigation by Kelowna RCMP that located the defendant and took him into custody for failure to appear in court. The accused faces other charges related to a shoplifting investigation that have yet to be proven in court.
In the Criminal Code of Canada, section 598, all accused individuals have the right to be tried by both a judge and a jury. However, a failure to appear in court for a jury trial can forfeit one’s right to be tried by a jury unless a judge determines the defendant had a legitimate excuse for not attending court.
Defence counsel for Hildebrand Acosta told Justice Hewson that the accused was struggling with alcohol addiction that escalated when his partner, Jami Bridges, suffered a miscarriage at their home in Kettle Valley at approximately 2:15 a.m. on Sept. 29, 2025.
Justice Hewson heard from the testimonies of both Hildebrand Acosta and Bridges that the pair did not attend the hospital when the miscarriage occurred. Bridges explained that she had previously suffered a miscarriage, knew the symptoms, and did not want to go to the hospital. At the time, Bridges said she locked herself in a room, and Hildebrand Acosta borrowed a phone from their landlord and called a nurse’s helpline.
Bridges said her partner had been drinking at the house when the miscarriage happened, and after “the drinking just continued.”
Hildbrand Acosta told the court, “I wasn’t aware of the date coming up because of the drinking,” and didn’t have a phone or access to one to be in contact with his lawyer.
Crown argued that Hildebrand Acosta could have borrowed a phone from someone to contact his lawyer, as he had done to call the nurse’s helpline. It was also argued that Hildebrand Acosta knew the importance of showing up for his trial, as he had appeared as he was required to when he was on trial in 2024 for the sexual assault charges. The case was deemed a mistrial due to no fault of the defendant, and the Sept. 29, 2025, date was later set to start the trial a second time.
Justice Hewson said that he is sympathetic toward the defendant, however, Hildebrand Acosta took no steps to contact his lawyer or the courts to explain his absence.
While the Justice said, “The tragic loss of his unborn child is an understandable explanation,” for not appearing in court.
“However, I am unable to find that voluntary, self-induced intoxication, even in the circumstance that existed on the morning of Sept. 29, 2025… is a legitimate excuse.”
The sexual assault trial of Hildebrand Acosta will be heard by a judge alone and is expected to take place in September 2026.