R. v. Hosannah, 2015 ONSC 2050
COURT FILE NO.: CRIMJ(P)161/13
DATE: 20150410
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Scott Latimer, for the Applicant
Applicant
- and -
SEAN HOSANNAH and MARIA HOSANNAH
Stephen Proudlove, for the Respondent Sean Hosannah
Margaret Osadet, for the Respondent Maria Hosannah
Respondents
HEARD: January 30 and March 31, 2015
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Sproat, J.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCE
[1] The Hosannahs were found guilty of manslaughter by reason of failing to provide the necessaries of life to their 27 month old daughter, Matinah.
[2] Mr. Hosannah called 911 at 1:49 a.m. on February 25, 2011 to report that Matinah was not breathing. Police and ambulance arrived at the apartment just before 2:00 a.m. The police officers who attended testified that Mr. Hosannah was attempting to perform CPR and that both Mr. and Mrs. Hosannah appeared concerned and distressed. Matinah arrived at the hospital at 2:21 a.m. but was vital signs absent and could not be resuscitated. She was pronounced dead at 4:21 a.m.
[3] Dr. Pollanen the Chief Forensic Pathologist for the Province of Ontario determined that there were two causes of death being a combination of asthma and malnutrition. Malnutrition means a lack of adequate nutrition from the insufficient intake of food and/or an unbalanced diet. Asthma is a condition involving the narrowing of the airways, making breathing difficult.
[4] Dr. Pollanen made the following findings regarding Matinah’s condition at death:
a. her weight was less than the 3^rd^ percentile for her age;
b. protein malnutrition;
c. vitamin D, which is necessary for bones to absorb calcium, was extremely low. Matinah’s bones were so soft and weak that normal handling could fracture her bones. One left rib and her left collarbone had healing fractures;
d. anemia which means a lower circulation of blood cells due to a lack of Vitamin B12 or folic acid;
e. chronic skin inflammation over parts of the arms, legs and neck;
f. enlarged heart and fluid build-up around the heart, kidney and other organs which is caused by lack of protein.
g. chronic asthma which is an inflammation in the bronchial tubes. Mucus plugs were found in Matinah’s bronchial tubes which indicated that an asthma attack was happening at the time of death.
[5] The information as to weight was as follows:
2008/11/26
(birth)
2.68 kg
3^rd^-10^th^ percentile
2009/04/07
(4 months)
6.5 kg
50-75^th^ percentile
2009/06/22
(7 months)
6.2 kg
3^rd^ percentile
2011/02/25
(28 months at death)
8.62 kg
<3^rd^ percentile (3^rd^ per centile for 28 months of age is 10.4 kg)
[6] In Dr. Pollanen’s opinion Matinah was malnourished due to protein and vitamin deficiencies. The impairment of blood circulation, the anemia, the dilation of the heart and the fluid accumulating in the tissue put her in a critical state of illness. She was then exposed to an asthma attack. The combination of malnutrition and the asthma attack resulted in shock and a failure of the blood to circulate properly. This caused brain cell death. Dr. Pollanen described the two conditions as being superimposed. Both the asthma and the malnutrition contributed to oxygen deficiency. Dr. Pollanen could not be specific as to dates, however, he said the malnutrition was chronic by which he means over a long period of time.
[7] Dr. Zlotkin, a leading expert in paediatric nutrition, with over 30 years of experience at the Hospital for Sick Children and the University of Toronto, testified that:
a. when there is a protein deficiency too much fluid builds up especially in the legs. It is treated by simply adding protein to the diet.
b. children typically obtain sufficient Vitamin D from commercial milk products which by law must be fortified with Vitamin D.
c. anemia is caused by a lack of folic acid, which can be provided by green leafy vegetables and fruit; or by a lack of Vitamin B12, which can be provided by meat, fish, poultry, eggs and milk.
d. if Matinah was eating zucchini, broccoli and eggplant that would provide plenty of folic acid.
e. Matinah’s weight was markedly below normal. At 28 months she was 8.62 kg and the low end of the normal range is 10.8 kg.
f. Matinah had gone for a long period without enough food to eat
g. while Matinah’s malnutrition was treatable up to the time of death, treating it may not have prevented the death. In other words, an asthma attack could itself cause death.
[8] In cross-examination Dr. Zlotkin provided the following evidence:
Q: When you talk about malnutrition in the case of Matinah Hosannah you are not talking about starvation.
A: I have a hard time answering the question as I mentioned I have very little information to go on as to the amount of food she might have been offered and the amount of food she ate. It is difficult to give a definitive answer as to whether or not there was a period in her life where she might have been starved. I simply don’t know.
[9] Dr. Zlotkin did go on to say there would have been long periods of Matinah’s life where she was not eating enough of the food that would provide her with requisite nutrients such as Vitamin B12 or protein.
[10] A sample of Matinah’s blood taken at the hospital on February 25, 2011 indicated a protein level of 20 grams per litre which is below the normal range of 32 – 50 grams per litre. The blood sample could not be tested to determine the Vitamin B12 level.
[11] Mr. and Mrs. Hosannah did not testify at trial. Photographs introduced in evidence indicated a well-stocked refrigerator. An article on the front of the refrigerator was entitled “The Value of Teaching Our Children Disciplined Eating Habits.” There was also a chart on which Amirah, the older daughter, got stars for things such as brushing teeth and drinking milk. There were large glass unmarked jars containing what was found to be “half and half” milk and cream.
[12] Dirk Huyer, the Chief Coroner for Ontario, called the Hosannahs on March 1, 2011. He described it as a quick phone call at a challenging time. He asked Mr. Hosannah about Matinah’s food. Mr. Hosannah passed the phone to Mrs. Hosannah. Dr. Huyer’s note recorded that Mrs. Hosannah advised that Matinah “ate mashed carrots, cookies + + (meaning many), bean soup (or bean soy?), broccoli, carrot, cauliflower, juice, water, orange juice, fruit juices, cut up fruit blended and yogurt. She ate as much as she wanted and a lot.” Dr. Huyer obtained Matinah’s records, such as the Exhibit 1 OHIP billing history and hospital records, none of which contained a recommendation for a nutritional supplement.
[13] Dr. Race saw Matinah on March 26, 2010. The Hosannah’s indicated that Matinah had been wheezing for one month and had cold symptoms. One of them advised that Matinah was not crawling or walking and had poor speech. Dr. Race recorded Matinah’s weight as 7.6 kg. Dr. Race noted that Matinah had a large anterior fontanelle which is the area in the skull where bones should knit together but had not.
[14] Dr. Race testified that she advised the Hosannahs of her concern that Matinah had a developmental delay and that Matinah needed to see a paediatrician to be diagnosed.
[15] Dr. Race’s assistant testified that she scheduled an appointment with a paediatrician within the next week. She left a message for the Hosannahs on voicemail. She later got a message from the paediatrician that the Hosannahs missed the appointment. She dialed their number again and gave the phone to Dr. Race. Dr. Race testified she left the Hosannahs a further voicemail message.
[16] Neither Dr. Race nor her assistant made any notes regarding following up with the Hosannahs. No effort was made to see if Matinah was ever taken to a paediatrician. Ms. Hosannah, in her statement to the police, denied knowing that Dr. Race had made an appointment with a paediatrician.
[17] The Agreed Statement of Fact filed at trial included that:
a. following Matinah’s birth on November 26, 2008 her doctors were concerned about her blood sugar being low and her having a possible infection. She was transferred to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit where she was given antibiotics and fed intravenously.
b. Matinah’s health was monitored until February, 2009 by staff at a community health clinic.
c. on March 23, 2009, the Hosannahs took Matinah to a medical clinic for eczema. They returned to the clinic on April 7, 2009 and were referred to the Hospital for Sick Children which they attended that day.
d. on June 22, 2009, the Hosannahs brought Matinah back to the Hospital for Sick Children due to eczema and they also attended a clinic the following day.
[18] Mrs. Hosannah gave a videotaped statement to the police, introduced at trial, which included the following:
(a) page 73-76 - a discussion of the importance of avoiding sugar in processed foods and eating healthy pure foods;
(b) page 77 - she shops at Whole Foods and buys preservative-free food;
(c) pages 78 – 81 – they eat organic vegetarian food. She makes bean soup which has a lot of protein;
(d) page 88 – Matinah only went to the doctor for eczema;
(e) page 133 – apart from vaccinations they have no religious objections to medical treatment;
(f) page 91 – Matinah was not walking and also not crawling;
(g) page 94 – different children walk at different ages and her sister’s son did not walk until after he was two;
(h) page 97 – they obtained an exemption from the children having vaccinations;
(i) page 99 – Matinah ate the same food the other family members ate;
(j) page 99-112 – further discussion of the benefits of eating healthy and pure food and avoiding sugar. She serves navy bean pie for dessert;
(k) page 108 – they stopped eating fish last July due to reports of mercury poisoning;
(l) page 112 – they are now taking Vitamin D supplements as recommended by their doctor.
(m) page 137 - Dr. Race was the last doctor to see Matinah when she was 16 months old.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF MR. HOSANNAH
[19] Mr. Hosannah’s PSR states that:
a. he is 42 years old
b. from age two he lived with his father and step-mother
c. as a result of differences with their step-mother he was placed in the care of the CAS from age 13-18.
d. he completed secondary school and married Maria in 2006. They have Amirah born May, 2005; Azizah born October, 2013 and are expecting another child. Both children are in the care of the CAS. They have unsupervised weekend access with Amirah and supervised access with Azizah.
e. he has been self-employed for 15 years selling black history publications and DVDs.
f. there are no issues with drugs and alcohol.
g. he maintains his innocence and would never do anything to harm his children.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF MRS. HOSANNAH
[20] Mrs. Hosannah's PSR states that:
a. she is 31 years old
b. she was raised by her mother until she was 12. Her mother died and then she was raised by siblings.
c. she completed high school and came to Canada when she was 19.
d. Matinah ate well and there were no issues with weight gain.
e. she was not concerned about Matinah not walking as she could scoot across the floor on her hands, and stood once on her second birthday, so she believed walking would soon follow.
f. no health care professional expressed any concern with Matinah’s weight or development.
g. her friends regard her as a good mother who would never harm her children
h. she does not accept any responsibility for the death of Matinah.
STATEMENTS TO THE COURT PRIOR TO SENTENCING (S.726 Criminal Code) – CHARACTER REFERENCES
[21] The Hosannahs both read lengthy statements and provided the court with copies. They both express great sadness and pain at the loss of Matinah.
[22] The statements also second guessed how the case was conducted by defence counsel and alleged that various witnesses fabricated evidence and lied. They also advanced a number of arguments that simply have no merit. For example:
a. that Matinah’s weakened and fractured bones were caused by Paget’s disease. Dr. Pollanen had no doubt this was caused by Vitamin D deficiency rickets which was supported by blood tests indicating a severe Vitamin D deficiency and x-rays;
b. that Matinah was somehow injected with Paget’s disease by hospital staff when she was in neonatal intensive care after her birth;
c. that weights for Matinah recorded at the Hospital for Sick Children and by Dr. Pollanen or his staff were inaccurate. In support of this the Hosannahs refer to weights recorded by ambulance and funeral home personnel and weights suggested by the size of Matinah’s shirt and diapers.
[23] Two character reference letters were also filed. Both writers have a high regard for the Hosannahs character based on their observations over many years.
POSITION OF THE CROWN
[24] The Crown seeks a sentence of four to six years imprisonment for both Mr. and Mrs. Hosannah, plus a DNA order and s.109 weapons prohibition for 10 years.
POSITION OF MR. AND MRS. HOSANNAH
[25] Defence counsel both submit that their client should be sentenced to time served in pre-trial custody and time otherwise credited by virtue of restrictive bail conditions followed by a three year term of probation. They did not take issue with the ancillary DNA order and weapons prohibition sought by the Crown.
THE LAW
[26] The range of sentence for manslaughter is from a suspended sentence to life imprisonment. A conditional sentence is not available.
[27] I begin with the principal cases relied upon by the Crown. The Crown’s written submission accurately describes the facts of these cases and I excerpt from it.
[28] In R v. DaSilva [2005] O.J. No. 5314 (Ont. C.A.). The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter as the result of the death of her two year old child. She was a young single mother who had abandoned her child for various periods of time over four days, the last time for more than 24 hours, while she indulged herself with Salsa dancing and pursued her new boyfriend. Specifically, she left her daughter alone in her crib in their apartment with virtually no food or liquids during a July heat wave and the child died of dehydration. She had offered no explanation for her behaviour. While the three year sentence was upheld by the Court of Appeal, it did state the following at paras. 10 and 12:
We agree with the Crown that this is a serious offence even though the death was not caused by prolonged abuse or physical assaults. It exemplifies a shocking and prolonged abdication of parental responsibility that is almost incomprehensible. The trial judge would certainly have been entitled to impose a higher penitentiary sentence…
…and in our view the sentence is at the very bottom of the range of what would constitute a fit sentence.
[29] In R v. Antone and Antone [1977] O.J. No. 742, the Court of Appeal varied the sentences originally imposed of two years less a day to five years imprisonment for both parents. The offenders, who had four children, had segregated the two older children, who were five and six years of age, in a separate room which was unheated. They were only fed intermittingly. Both suffered malnutrition and frostbite, resulting in the death of the older child.
[30] In R v. Fujii [2002] A.J. No. 1089 (Q.B.), Martin J. imposed a sentence of eight years on a mother of two who repeatedly left her two infant children alone, initially for a few hours and then ultimately for a period of ten days, to pursue a new romantic relationship. Both children died of dehydration and starvation and the offender attempted to dispose of the bodies when she returned home. The offender pleaded guilty and was accepted to be suffering from both depression and a personality disorder at the time.
[31] In R. v. Ferguson 2008 SCC 6, [2008] S.C.J. No. 6 McLachlin C.J., for the Court, addressed the role of a sentencing judge following a finding of guilt by a jury:
1
16 […] unlike a judge sitting alone, who has a duty to give reasons, the jury gives only its ultimate verdict. The sentencing judge therefore must do his or her best to determine the facts necessary for sentencing from the issues before the jury and from the jury’s verdict. This may not require the sentencing judge to arrive at a complete theory of the facts; the sentencing judge is required to make only those factual determinations necessary for deciding the appropriate sentence in the case at hand.
17 Two principles govern the sentencing judge in this endeavour. First, the sentencing judge “is bound by the express and implied factual implications of the jury’s verdict”: R. v. Brown, 1991 CanLII 73 (SCC), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 518, p. 523. The sentencing judge “shall accept as proven all facts, express or implied, that are essential to the jury’s verdict of guilty” (Criminal Code , s. 724(2) (a)), and must not accept as fact any evidence consistent only with a verdict rejected by the jury: Brown; R. v. Braun (1995), 1995 CanLII 16075 (MB CA), 95 C.C.C. (3d) 443 (Man. C.A.).
18 Second, when the factual implications of the jury’s verdict are ambiguous, the sentencing judge should not attempt to follow the logical process of the jury, but should come to his or her own independent determination of the relevant facts: Brown; R. v. Fiqia (1994), 1994 ABCA 402, 162 A.R. 117 (C.A.). In so doing, the sentencing judge “may find any other relevant fact that was disclosed by evidence at the trial to be proven” (s. 724(2) (b)). To rely upon an aggravating fact or previous conviction, the sentencing judge must be convinced of the existence of that fact or conviction beyond a reasonable doubt; to rely upon any other relevant fact, the sentencing judge must be persuaded on a balance of probabilities: ss. 724(3) (d) and 724(3) (e); see also R. v. Gardiner, 1982 CanLII 30 (SCC), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368; R. v. Lawrence (1987), 1987 CanLII 9452 (ON SC), 58 C.R. (3d) 71 (Ont. H.C.). It follows from the purpose of the exercise that the sentencing judge should find only those facts necessary to permit the proper sentence to be imposed in the case at hand. The judge should first ask what the issues on sentencing are, and then find such facts as are necessary to deal with those issues.
ANALYSIS
[32] Mr. and Mrs. Hosannah are individuals and I must determine the appropriate sentence for each. Neither the Crown nor the defence submissions sought to differentiate them for the purpose of sentencing. For reasons I will explain I find them equally culpable.
[33] There is no evidence that the Hosannahs intended or wanted Matinah to die. It is, however clear why the jury found them guilty. Parliament has defined the essential elements of the offence of failing to provide the necessaries of life to a child, in terms of whether:
a. the parent’s conduct represented a marked departure from what is expected of a reasonably prudent parent in the same circumstances; and
b. a reasonable parent in the same circumstances as the Hosannahs would have known that Matinah was in need or foreseen a risk that failure to provide her with the necessaries of life would endanger her life or be likely to endanger her health permanently.
[34] Certainly and obviously the Hosannah’s conduct was a marked departure from that of any reasonable parent. A reasonable parent would have:
a. recognized that Matinah was exceedingly small for her age;
b. followed up on the advice by Dr. Race that Matinah should see a specialist at 16 months; and
c. taken Matinah to a doctor when her inability to walk continued from 17 to 27 months.
[35] It is necessary then to analyze how Matinah came to her death and the extent to which the Hosannahs were blameworthy.
[36] In preparing my decision on sentence I listened again to all of the evidence of Dr. Pollanen and Dr. Zlotkin. The evidence does not support, and certainly does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that this is a case of parents deliberately starving a child in the sense of withholding food from a hungry child over an extended period.
[37] There were three components of Matinah’s malnutrition, which Dr. Pollanen described as having progressed to be a critical illness:
a. vitamin D deficiency
b. anemia caused by Vitamin B12 deficiency
c. protein deficiency
[38] Matinah was still being breast fed at 27 months. Breast milk does not contain Vitamin D. The family refrigerator was stocked with large jars of what tested as half and half cream. The jars were not labelled and so did not appear to be a commercial product. The Hosannahs avoided commercial milk products which by regulation must be fortified with Vitamin D.
[39] The Hosannahs had a vegan or near vegan diet. They, therefore, avoided most of the usual sources of Vitamin B12 being meat, fish, poultry and milk. Dr. Zlotkin recommends that persons with this diet take a Vitamin B12 supplement. Matinah did not.
[40] As noted, Matinah was not fed meat, fish or poultry which are also sources of protein. Dr. Zlotkin stated that beans, which Mrs. Hosannah said were fed to Matinah, are also a good source of protein so it is less clear how Matinah came to have a protein deficiency.
[41] It appears that in terms of choices of food, the Hosannahs believed they were doing the right thing but it turned out to be horribly wrong. Their diet was organic and lacked additives. The result was protein, Vitamin D and Vitamin B12 deficiencies. This diet was certainly ill-advised and negligent. In my opinion, however, the fact of providing this diet to Matinah, without the further warning and signs I will come to, would not itself constitute a criminal offence.
[42] On March 26, 2010, at age 16 months, the Hosannahs took Matinah to Dr. Race. One of the Hosannahs advised Dr. Race that Matinah was not crawling or walking. As noted by Dr. Race, Matinah’s skull bones should have knit together but had not. These were obvious and serious concerns that could not have escaped Dr. Race’s attention and she would surely have communicated them. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Dr. Race advised the Hosannahs that there were serious concerns that Matinah was developmentally delayed and that she needed to see a specialist. The evidence is less clear, and I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Hosannahs were actually notified that an appointment with a paediatrician had been scheduled.
[43] The fact that the Hosannahs ignored the advice of Dr. Race is both culpable and criminal. Further, from 16 months to her death Matinah gained only 1kg. Week by week, month by month, the Hosannahs could see that there was no indication of any improvement. Matinah never walked and her weight gain was slight. While Mrs. Hosannah may have spent more time with Matinah than Mr. Hosannah, they both received the same advice from Dr. Race and they both were aware that Matinah was not walking and was gaining very little weight.
[44] I do not know why the Hosannahs ignored medical advice and warning signs but I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that they did. Distrust of medical professionals may have been a factor. I expect there were other factors at work but they are not apparent on the evidence.
[45] The aggravating factors in this case are:
a. the Hosannahs ignored medical advice, and obvious warning signs, over the period from 16 months to Matinah’s death;
b. the fact the offence was committed against a vulnerable child is deemed an aggravating factor by s. 718.2 (a)(ii.1) of the Criminal Code.
[46] Further, s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code provides that in cases involving offences against children the court shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence.
[47] The mitigating factors in this case are:
a. the Hosannahs have no criminal record and appear in all other respects to have been decent law abiding members of the community;
b. there is no evidence that the offence was committed as a result of the Hosannahs preferring their own desires and interests as was the situation in a number of cases cited by the Crown.
c. prior to being arrested the Hosannahs co-operated in having Amirah tested by health care professionals.
d. while there is no specific expression of remorse, I believe the Hosannahs have learned from this tragedy and would not make the same mistakes again that led to the malnutrition.
e. that the Hosannahs were only responsible for the malnutrition which was one of two significant contributing causes to Matinah’s death.
[48] The cases cited by the Crown in support of a four to six year sentence are clearly distinguishable. They all involve a course of conduct by the offender that would obviously, and in short order, cause the death of a child. In this regard:
a. in Da Silva the mother left a two year old for various periods of time, most recently for 24 hours with virtually no food or water during a July heat wave (three year sentence on guilty plea).
b. in Antone the parents segregated children ages five and six in an unheated room and deprive them of food such that they suffered malnutrition and frostbite and one child died (five year sentence).
c. in Fujii a mother left two infant children alone for 10 days while she pursued a romantic relationship and the children died of dehydration and starvation (eight year sentence on guilty plea).
[49] I have carefully reviewed all of the cases cited by the defence. Many of the cases cited involved fatalities resulting from brief periods of neglect or criminality; such as shaking a baby, passing a school bus with flashing lights, or a driver towing a friend on roller skates. I find these cases of relatively little assistance given that the failure of the Hosannahs continued for 11 months after seeing Dr. Race.
[50] The defence also cited a long list of homicide cases such as manslaughter, dangerous driving, criminal negligence and impaired driving causing death, in which the court imposed a conditional sentence in the range of 18 months to two years less a day. As noted, a conditional sentence is not available. While case law recognizes that a conditional sentence may be longer than what would otherwise be the appropriate custodial sentence, cases imposing a conditional sentence of 18 months to two years less a day do not support the defence submission that a three to six month custodial sentence in this case is appropriate.
[51] In my opinion the culpability of the Hosannahs is less than in the cases cited by the Crown. Further, we have the unusual, perhaps unique, situation in which there were two significant causes that contributed to death being malnutrition and an asthma attack. There was no evidence to suggest neglect by the Hosannahs in any way caused or contributed to the asthma attack.
[52] I think it unlikely the Hosannahs will re-offend, but that is not to suggest that the CAS should not be closely monitoring the family. There must, however, still be a fit sentence for the serious crime that has been committed. The failure to provide the necessaries of life continued for at least the 11 months following the visit to Dr. Race.
CONCLUSION
[53] The Hosannahs each spent two months in pre-trial custody for which I allow three months credit. Each has spent 47 months subject to bail terms, which were not terribly restrictive, and for which I will allow a modest additional credit of three months plus one day. The total credit is, therefore, 6 months plus one day.
[54] In my judgment a fit sentence for each of Mr. and Mrs. Hosannah is a 30 month period of imprisonment. From this should be deducted six months plus one day credit. Mr. Hosannah is sentenced to serve an additional term of imprisonment of two years less one day. This shall be followed by three years of probation. In addition to the statutory terms Mr. Hosannah shall:
a. take counselling as directed by the probation officer respecting child care and nutrition; and
b. provide meal and parenting plans for any children in his care
[55] After I provided a summary of my reasons for sentence, Ms. Osadet requested that Mrs. Hosannah’s sentence be increased by one day as she understood the federal system were better able to deal with a pregnant offender. The Crown did not oppose this request and so I sentence Mrs. Hosannah to a two year term of imprisonment.
[56] There shall also be a s.109 Criminal Code weapons prohibition order and a s.487.051 Criminal Code order for the taking of DNA samples.
Sproat, J.
Released: April 10, 2015
CITATION: R. v. Hosannah, 2015 ONSC 2050
COURT FILE NO.: CRIMJ(P)161/13
DATE: 20150410
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Applicant
- and –
SEAN HOSANNAH and MARIA HOSANNAH
Respondents
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Sproat, J.
Released: April 10, 2015