ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: 09-8352
DATE: 20120515
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – MOHAMED JAMA YUSUF
Lisa Miles and Matthew Humphreys, for the Crown
James Foord, for the Accused
SENTENCING DECISION
JUSTICE L. RATUSHNY
[ 1 ] Mohamed Yusuf has pleaded guilty to manslaughter in connection with the death of Sean Murphy and to failing to attend court.
[ 2 ] When he caused Mr. Murphy’s death in 2008 Mr. Yusuf was 20 years of age and had no prior criminal record.
[ 3 ] The issue for his sentencing is the number of years this young man should be incarcerated for his actions in all of the circumstances.
[ 4 ] The circumstances to be considered include those of the offence and those of the offender, both at the time of the offence and up to the present time, so as to assess Mr. Yusuf’s degree of moral blameworthiness for the tragedy he caused and impose a just sentence.
The Offence
[ 5 ] In August 2008 the deceased, Sean Murphy, was having a few drinks at a bar in Ottawa. Mohamed Yusuf was at that same bar but the two did not know each other. Mr. Murphy was 51 years of age and was well known to the other regular bar patrons. Mr. Yusuf, then 20, was visiting Ottawa and having drinks with friends before returning to his home in Edmonton.
[ 6 ] Just after midnight Mr. Murphy left the bar, retrieved his bicycle and departed, riding his bike towards Mr. Yusuf who was with his friends at a Mac’s Milk store.
[ 7 ] Mr. Yusuf heard Mr. Murphy say something like “Do you got some?” and then, after one of Mr. Yusuf’s friends said, apparently to Mr. Yusuf, “There’s your bike”, Mr. Yusuf approached Mr. Murphy, punched him on the head and knocked him from his bicycle to the ground. As Mr. Murphy lay on the ground, Mr. Yusuf walked over to him and repeatedly stomped and kicked him about the head and body with his foot. Two of Mr. Yusuf’s friends who were witnessing the attack quickly left during it.
[ 8 ] After the attack Mr. Yusuf immediately walked away.
[ 9 ] Mr. Murphy remained on the ground seriously injured and in convulsions. Mr. Yusuf did not see him having convulsions.
[ 10 ] After Mr. Yusuf had left, one of his friends knelt down beside Mr. Murphy as he was lying on the ground and convulsing, rolled him over, searched his pants pockets and went back to the bar.
[ 11 ] At the time of the attack, both Mr. Murphy and Mr. Yusuf were intoxicated by the consumption of alcohol and Mr. Murphy tested positive for cocaine.
[ 12 ] Mr. Yusuf then said goodbye to one of his friends and left the area.
[ 13 ] When others in the bar became aware that Mr. Murphy was on the ground across the street they ran over to assist him. Emergency personnel and the police attended, believing that Mr. Murphy had had a bicycle accident, as there were no witnesses present who could say what had happened.
[ 14 ] Mr. Murphy was taken to the hospital. He never regained consciousness and died twenty-one days later as a result of bronchopneumonia due to an untreatable head injury. The autopsy report indicated that Mr. Murphy’s fall from his bicycle resulting from Mr. Yusuf’s punch to his head was the most likely cause of his head injury and ultimate death. The kicks administered after that fall are seriously aggravating but they were not assessed as having been the cause of death.
[ 15 ] The day after the attack Mr. Yusuf returned to his home in Edmonton.
[ 16 ] Police investigation eventually identified Mr. Yusuf as the attacker. The police investigation included undercover activities with Abdulhakim Mohammed, the friend who had rolled Mr. Murphy over as he lay on the ground and searched his pants’ pocket.
[ 17 ] Police learned that on Mr. Yusuf’s return to Edmonton he had bragged to his supervisor and co-workers about “stomping” Mr. Murphy.
[ 18 ] Mr. Yusuf was arrested in Edmonton almost 5 months after the attack, on January 20, 2009. He was charged with second-degree murder and transported back to Ottawa. In Ottawa just over 4 months later on June 2, 2009, he was released on bail and allowed to return to his family home in Edmonton.
After The Offence
[ 19 ] While on release in Edmonton, Mr. Yusuf complied with his bail conditions for almost 23 months but then breached them on two separate occasions. In April 2011 he was arrested and charged with two breaches for communicating with a witness and violating his house arrest condition. He was released three weeks later in May 2011. Almost two months later in July 2011, he was again arrested and charged with four breaches for violating his house arrest condition. In September 2011 he pled guilty to some of these charges and received a suspended sentence after serving 58 days in custody.
[ 20 ] In October 2011 Mr. Yusuf was to have appeared in court in Ottawa in respect of his second-degree murder charge that was to have been resolved by way of a plea to manslaughter. He failed to appear. A bench warrant for his arrest was issued on October 14, 2011.
[ 21 ] Mr. Yusuf remained at large for the next two and one half months until January 2, 2012, when police attended an Edmonton residence in response to a disturbance call. They located an intoxicated Mr. Yusuf who identified himself with a false Alberta driver’s license. When confronted to give his true name he provided police with a false name and various dates of birth and background details. He was eventually arrested for obstructing police and taken to Edmonton Police Headquarters where fingerprinting led police to correctly identify him.
[ 22 ] On January 6, 2012 Mr. Yusuf was transported back to Ottawa and kept in custody. On March 27, 2012, he pleaded guilty to manslaughter with the Crown’s consent, and to failing to attend court on October 11, 2011.
The Accused’s Background
[ 23 ] Mr. Yusuf was 10 years of age when his mother brought him and his four siblings to Canada from Somalia to join his father in Toronto. His father abandoned the family a few months later, however, and his mother struggled to raise the five children on her own. She moved the family to Ottawa and then to Edmonton. Except for Mr. Yusuf, all of her children have no criminal records, are focusing on their education and are or will be attending university. Mr. Yusuf did not complete Grade 12.
[ 24 ] Mr. Yusuf had just turned 20 at the time of the offence and had no prior criminal record. In Edmonton he had worked at a movie theatre, for a phone survey company and then at a factory before being laid off. He has been described as an average to good worker.
[ 25 ] He abided by his bail conditions for 23 months before beginning a series of breaches in April 2011. He did not return to school or obtain employment while on release for over 2 years.
[ 26 ] His family continues to support him in spite of his criminal activities.
[ 27 ] He apologized to Mr. Murphy’s family and to his own family at the sentencing hearing. He said he wants to become a positive and contributing member of society. He is now 23 years of age.
The Deceased
[ 28 ] Sean Murphy’s death shocked his family and friends. They suffered as they watched him slowly die. Their suffering was compounded by not knowing what had happened to cause such serious injuries. When they did learn of Mr. Yusuf’s actions months later, they were unable to understand how he and his friends could have failed to come forward and identify themselves to police.
[ 29 ] Mr. Murphy’s niece described her uncle Sean as having a “live and let live” and a “happy-go-lucky” attitude to life. He was always good-natured and well liked.
[ 30 ] Sean’s brother, Michael, described Sean’s death as senseless and pointless and likely the result of being knocked off his bicycle by an unprovoked attack. He provided a wise and thoughtful victim impact statement to the Court and I thank him and all the others for their statements. Michael Murphy spoke of how he understood Mr. Yusuf to have reacted impulsively and violently in knocking Sean off his bicycle so that those actions amounted to a bad mistake with fateful consequences. He described the subsequent beating and kicking of his brother while he was unconscious on the ground, however, as a separate act that was shameful and completely unnecessary.
[ 31 ] I agree with Michael Murphy’s comments. They are measured and appropriate.
[ 32 ] There is no question that Sean Murphy was entirely blameless for what happened. He was an innocent person who did nothing wrong. As Mr. Yusuf told the family and the Court, “I alone am to blame”.
[ 33 ] Sean Murphy, as the Crown has stated, was a 51 year-old man who liked his alcohol and as a result, was not in the best of health just before he died. He had no idea what was about to happen when he made some harmless comment to Mr. Yusuf. Mr. Yusuf was significantly younger and taller. Mr. Murphy was probably on his way home in an intoxicated state when, for no apparent reason and without provocation or warning, he was attacked while on his bicycle by someone he did not know. He was completely defenseless. Neither Mr. Yusuf nor his friends came over to help him or took any action to help him.
Positions of Counsel and Pre-Sentence Custody
[ 34 ] The Crown requests a total sentence in the range of 12 years for the manslaughter and the fail to appear, less the applicable pre-sentence custody credit.
[ 35 ] The Defence submits a 5 years total sentence is appropriate for the manslaughter and a consecutive 90 days to 6 months for the fail to appear, less the applicable pre-sentence custody credit.
[ 36 ] The accused has been in custody for two separate periods, the first after his arrest and until being granted bail and the second beginning with his apprehension in January 2012 to the present time. Counsel agree, as do I, that for these two custodial periods his total pre-sentence custody credit period amounts to 395 days to today’s date, comprised of a 2 for 1 credit for his first custodial period from January to June 2009, and a 1 for 1 credit for his second custodial period in 2012 after his apprehension in Edmonton.
[ 37 ] Defence counsel also requests a 5 months credit for the almost 23 months that Mr. Yusuf complied with his bail conditions, pursuant to principles enunciated in R. v. Downes , 2006 (ON CA) , [2006] O.J. No. 555 (Ont. C.A.), as summarized at para. 37.
[ 38 ] I decline, however, to give Mr. Yusuf pre-sentence custody credit for this period of time or to consider this period of compliance as a mitigating factor. Even though he had not come forward to turn himself into police after his attack on Mr. Murphy in August 2008 and his return to Edmonton, his right to remain silent and be presumed innocent was respected and in all of his circumstances he was given the benefit of bail in June 2009. His bail conditions were, therefore, quite liberal in the face of the second-degree murder charge and his post-offence behaviour. His bail conditions allowed him to again leave Ontario, to live with his family in Alberta and to leave his home for purposes of employment, school or at any time if in the company of an adult member of his immediate family. His bail conditions did not amount to significant restrictions on his liberty. They allowed Mr. Yusuf to carry on with a relatively normal life. There is no evidence that their impact on Mr. Yusuf was anything more than minimal, although I understand full well their impact on his mother and siblings would have been significantly more than minimal, entrusted as they were with accompanying him outside the home.
[ 39 ] It is for these reasons that I regard Mr. Yusuf’s bail conditions as amounting to a form of behaviour and location control and not as a form of custody that warrants any credit against sentence.
Analysis
[ 40 ] The circumstances serving to mitigate and aggravate sentence arise out of the facts reviewed above.
[ 41 ] Those mitigating sentence are Mr. Yusuf’s plea of guilt, his relative youth at 20 years of age in 2008, his first offender status and his stable and supportive family. Notwithstanding his statements to the Court during the sentencing hearing, I am not satisfied, however, that Mr. Yusuf is committed to becoming a better person. To date, he has done very little in that regard other than to allow his family to shore him up. Time will tell.
[ 42 ] The circumstances aggravating sentence are numerous.
[ 43 ] Mr. Yusuf attacked Sean Murphy for no reason.
[ 44 ] Mr. Yusuf obviously and significantly outmatched Mr. Murphy in terms of age, health, size and attacking without warning. I agree with the Crown that these particular circumstances made Mr. Murphy more vulnerable and the attack more brutal.
[ 45 ] I also agree with the Crown that while it could be that Mr. Yusuf’s initial attack was an impulsive act, his subsequent walking over to where Sean Murphy lay and his kicking and stomping of him were not. He chose to continue to inflict gratuitous and cruel violence against an unconscious Sean Murphy.
[ 46 ] Then he compounded the tragedy by deciding to do nothing, by deciding to walk away from Mr. Murphy’s prone body, return to the bar, give his friend a “high five”, leave the scene and in Edmonton some time later, to brag about his stomping of an old man in Ottawa. He showed no concern, no anxiety and no remorse. He seems to have gone on with his life as if nothing had happened, until the police were able to identify him after months of investigation and he was arrested.
[ 47 ] Neither Mr. Yusuf nor his friends who had been present that evening ever called for help for Mr. Murphy or stepped forward to take any responsibility afterwards. It is particularly repugnant and it also shatters the hope that these young people would have possessed some moral compass, that one of Mr. Yusuf’s friends chose to turn Mr. Murphy’s unconscious and convulsing body over so as to reach in his pocket and steal from him. I understand Mr. Yusuf had already left the scene and did not see his friend do this and did not see that Mr. Murphy was having convulsions. However, it is disturbing and alarming that these young men and particularly Mr. Yusuf were willing to prey on a vulnerable person for no reason and then exhibited a complete lack of conscience and empathy.
[ 48 ] In all of these circumstances, it can be understood that Sean Murphy was a man at the wrong place at the wrong time and he lost his life for no reason. He was the unsuspecting target of an intoxicated Mr. Yusuf who, impulsively it seems, decided to attack him and once Mr. Murphy was on the ground, chose to finish him off with extra violence for good measure and to nonchalantly walk away. Perhaps Mr. Yusuf committed this inexplicable violence out of bravado and to amuse and impress his friends. However, his actions were those of a bully, a bully emboldened and disinhibited by alcohol who went out of his way to attack a smaller, intoxicated man who was on his way home on his bicycle. It was violence that was unprovoked, reckless, brutal and senseless.
[ 49 ] Mr. Murphy’s life was worth so much more than Mr. Yusuf accorded it.
[ 50 ] Mr. Yusuf, it is correct to observe, has squandered the chances given to him after being granted the privilege of bail on the charge of second-degree murder. He was given a chance to work, to go to school and to do something with his life other than to live with his family. He chose to do none of this. He took no counseling. It is unclear what he did while on release. What is clear is that after 23 months on generous bail conditions in Edmonton and beginning in late April 2011, he decided to breach those bail conditions. He was charged with two breaches and released again on bail one month later, in May 2011. Two months later he was again arrested, this time for four additional breaches. In September 2011 he pleaded guilty to the accumulated breaches and received a time served sentence. One month after that, on October 11, 2012, he was to have attended court in Ottawa on the charge of second-degree murder. He decided not to attend. He remained at large and estranged from his family, until January 2012 when he was apprehended in Edmonton. He was intoxicated at the time. He lied to police about his name. He provided them with false identification.
[ 51 ] All of these circumstances serve to further aggravate sentence. They portray a young man who does as he wishes, who disregards court orders and who, except for his plea and the lack of a prior record in 2008, has failed to exhibit any good-character side to his personality. There is no evidence that he has engaged in any pro-social activities since 2008. There is no evidence that he will engage in pro-social activities in the future. There are no assurances that he will not offend again, with violence and without conscience. There are no assurances he has changed. While he certainly had the right to remain silent in respect of the charge of second-degree murder and did remain silent, he also had the opportunity to govern himself better after that charge but he failed to do so.
[ 52 ] In addition, Mr. Yusuf was given the privilege of release on a second-degree murder charge and yet his decision was to try to evade that charge. His decision not to attend court in respect of such a grave offence requires significant denunciation.
[ 53 ] With this sad backdrop of events, I give little weight to Mr. Yusuf’s recent expressions of remorse to Sean Murphy’s family, his own family and the Court during his sentencing hearing. His words are late and I question their sincerity. They do not serve to mitigate sentence.
[ 54 ] It bears reminding that Mr. Yusuf has been found guilty of causing Mr. Murphy’s death by an unlawful act, being the intentional blow he inflicted to Mr. Murphy’s head causing him to fall from his bicycle. The risk of bodily harm from his actions was easily objectively foreseeable. This amounts to the crime of unlawful act manslaughter. He has not been found guilty of murder. There is no evidence he intended to cause death by his actions nor that he committed acts that amounted to the objective foreseeability of the risk of death ( R. v. Creighton , 1993 (SCC) , [1993] S.C.J. No 91 (SCC), at para. 78 .).
[ 55 ] In turning to the sentencing principles and objectives that guide the imposition of a fit sentence for this unlawful act manslaughter, the starting point is the assessment of Mr. Yusuf’s level of moral fault for his crime. As the Supreme Court of Canada has stated in R. v. C.A.M. (1996), 1996 (SCC) , 105 C.C.C. (3d) 327 (SCC), at paras. 81 and 82 , retribution requires that a judicial sentence properly reflect the moral blameworthiness of the offender. Retribution is to be conceptually distinguished from its legitimate sibling, denunciation. Denunciation as a sentencing objective mandates that a judicial sentence communicate society’s condemnation of the offender’s conduct.
[ 56 ] I find the level of Mr. Yusuf’s moral blameworthiness for Mr. Murphy’s death is increased by the manner in which he caused that death, namely, his intentional inflicting of significant bodily harm through his initial and subsequent attacks against a vulnerable individual, actions that were unprovoked, without reason and vicious. As a consequence, his punishment must reflect his heightened degree of moral fault for Mr. Murphy’s death.
[ 57 ] The concept of moral fault and denunciation of an offender’s conduct according to that moral fault does not define the entirety of the sentencing process. As stated in C.A.M. , at para. 82 .
Neither retribution nor denunciation alone provides an exhaustive justification for the imposition of criminal sanctions…. In the final analysis, the overarching duty of a sentencing judge is to draw upon all the legitimate principles of sentencing to determine a “just and appropriate” sentence which reflects the gravity of the offence committed and the moral blameworthiness of the offender.
[ 58 ] In Mr. Yusuf’s circumstances, his punishment has to adequately reflect the paramount sentencing principles and objectives of denunciation, general deterrence, specific deterrence and the protection of society. Additionally and particularly applicable for youthful first offenders such as Mr. Yusuf, the important objective of rehabilitation and the exercise of restraint in determining the kind and length of sentence for a youthful first offender is part of the balancing process: R. v. Priest , 1996 (ON CA) , [1996] O.J. No. 3369 (Ont. C.A.).
[ 59 ] For Mr. Yusuf’s crime there is no question that a jail term is required so as to adequately denounce the gravity of his actions and reflect his level of moral fault. The more difficult issue is the balance to be struck between all of the sentencing principles and objectives in light of Mr. Yusuf’s youth.
[ 60 ] The ultimate liability under Canada’s Criminal Code for the crime of manslaughter is a life sentence, underscoring our society’s belief in the sanctity of human life and the serious consequences that should flow to an offender who ends a human life by an unlawful act.
[ 61 ] All in all, Mr. Yusuf acted violently and callously in causing Mr. Murphy’s death. His level of moral fault is high. His actions after the offence are largely aggravating. I am unable to assess his future level of risk to the safety of the community and based on his past actions, I have concerns for public safety. On the other side of the balancing process, Mr. Yusuf is a youthful first offender and he has pleaded guilty to a grave offence.
[ 62 ] Counsel have referred me to a number of cases, most of which are distinguishable on their facts, and counsel sensibly concede it is the wide range of factual circumstances that leads to the wide range of sentences for manslaughter in our jurisprudence.
[ 63 ] I mention a few of the more applicable manslaughter cases according to their facts, so as to help place Mr. Yusuf in an appropriate sentencing range, leaving aside the issue of pre-sentence custody: R. v. Garrison , 1999 (ON CA) , [1999] O.J. No. 3782 (Ont. C. A.); R. v. Hanifan , 2001 (ON CA) , [2001] O.J. No. 1576 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Sinclair , 2009 MBCA 71 , [2009] M.J. No. 252 (Man. C.A.); R. v. George , 2010 ONSC 6017 , [2010] O.J. No. 4737 (Ont. S.C.J.); R. v. MacFarlane , 2012 ONCA 82 , [2012] O.J. No. 447 (Ont. C.A.).
[ 64 ] In Garrison , the offender had come upon an elderly alcoholic on the street and had thrown or pushed him to the ground, causing him to strike his head. The offender then stole the victim’s wallet. The victim eventually died from his injuries. The Court of Appeal characterized the offender’s action as a cowardly attack on a vulnerable person with a callous disregard for the safety of the victim. The offender’s long criminal record of eighty prior offences over twenty years including twenty-four offences of violence was a significant aggravating factor. The offender was not a young person. A trial had been held. The Court imposed a ten years’ sentence of imprisonment.
[ 65 ] In Hanifan , the offender and the victim had exchanged words at a local bar. The offender left the bar first and waited for the victim. When the victim came outside the offender punched him once in the face. This caused the victim to fall and hit his head, causing a fatal head injury. A trial was held. There is no mention of the offender’s age or if he had a prior criminal record. For this “one punch manslaughter”, the offender was sentenced to 6 years’ incarceration.
[ 66 ] In Sinclair , there had been a three-on-one attack. It was a planned robbery. The victim was kicked and stomped and left bleeding on the roadway as the offenders, including Mr. Sinclair, fled. The victim was then struck by a car and died from his accumulated injuries. It had been a brutal and random attack with callous disregard for the victim’s safety in leaving him on a roadway. The offender Mr. Sinclair had been 21 years of age at the time of the attack, had no prior criminal record, had exhibited good behaviour since the incident and had a young son and a supportive family. There was a trial. Mr. Sinclair was sentenced to six years’ incarceration.
[ 67 ] In George , a 22 year-old aboriginal offender got into an argument with his friend over the offender’s girlfriend. The offender struck the victim and then suggested they continue the fight outside. The offender was seen attacking the victim in an alleyway including kicks to his head. The victim died from a devastating head injury. The offender pleaded guilty and attributed the attack to his drinking. He had been diagnosed with alcohol related neurodevelopmental disorder, a class of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. His childhood had been chaotic. He had limited intellectual abilities. He had a considerable criminal record including for violent offences. He was judged to be a serious threat to community safety such that the emphasis had to tilt away from rehabilitation and towards denunciation and deterrence. He was sentenced to 7 years’ incarceration.
[ 68 ] In MacFarlane , a 21 year-old offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter. He had a prior criminal record and was on probation at the time. He had consumed alcohol at a party, left the party with a friend and encountered the victim, who was with another person on a bicycle. The offender recognized that other person on the bicycle as someone who had stolen a bicycle from him in the past. The offender and his friend chased that other person who was able to escape. They then turned on the victim and beat him with their fists. Ultimately the offender’s friend stabbed the victim in the heart causing his death. The offender was aware his friend was carrying a knife but he did not administer the fatal blow. They later returned to the party, leaving the victim bleeding on the street. The offender co-operated with the police and was severely beaten in jail as a consequence of pleading guilty. He was sentenced to 4 years’ incarceration.
[ 69 ] These few cases, only roughly comparable on their facts, imposed sentences of between 4 and 10 years’ incarceration. Mr. Yusuf does not have the long criminal record as in Garrison where the offender was sentenced to 10 years. His actions against Mr. Murphy and his post-offence conduct are more aggravating than in Hanifan and Sinclair , each of whom received 6 years. In George , public safety concerns arising out of mental health issues and restraint issues arising out of the offender’s aboriginal status largely shaped the 7 years’ sentence, making this case almost completely distinguishable. In MacFarlane , the offender received a 4 years’ sentence, did not administer the fatal blow and co-operated fully with police, neither of which factors apply to Mr. Yusuf’s situation.
[ 70 ] In all of the circumstances of the present case, I have determined that a total sentence of 6 ½ years for the manslaughter and one year consecutive for the fail to appear is “a just and appropriate sentence which reflects the gravity of the offence committed and the moral blameworthiness of the offender”, according to C.A.M ., at para. 82 and also according to the fundamental principle set out in s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code , that a sentence be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
[ 71 ] Mr. Yusuf please stand.
[ 72 ] It is for these reasons that I impose a 6 ½ years sentence of incarceration for your offence of manslaughter in connection with the death of Sean Murphy, and a consecutive one-year sentence for your fail to appear in court. Your total sentence for the two offences before the deduction of 395 days of pre-sentence custody credit is, therefore, 7 ½ years. Your 7 ½ years total sentence amounts to 2738 days and when 395 days are deducted, you are left with having 2343 days left to serve, amounting, roughly calculated, to just under 6 ½ years left to serve for both offences.
[ 73 ] I direct your warrant of committal record the following sentences to take into account the pre-sentence custody credit. For manslaughter, your sentence is 1978 days plus 395 days of pre-sentence custody credit. For the fail to appear, your sentence is 365 days to be served consecutive to the 1978 days.
[ 74 ] There are two other Orders that follow, a DNA Order and a section 109 Order for life. The DNA Order requires that you submit to the taking of a bodily sample for the purposes of DNA analysis and data bank storage. The s. 109 Order made under the Criminal Code prohibits you for your lifetime from possessing any firearm or ammunition or any other item referred to in s. 109.
The Hon. Madam Justice L. Ratushny
Released: May 15, 2012
COURT FILE NO.: 09-8352
DATE: 20120515
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – MOHAMED YUSUF
SENTENCING DECISION
Ratushny J.
Released: May 15, 2012