CITATION: R v. Hebert, 2016 ONSC 994
COURT FILE NO.: CR-14-0104
DATE: 2016-02-09
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Her Majesty The Queen,
Andrew Sadler, for the Crown
- and -
Barry Ryan Hebert,
David Dubinsky, for the Accused
Accused
HEARD: January 6, 7 and 11, 2016, at Thunder Bay, Ontario
Mr. Justice F. Bruce Fitzpatrick
Reasons for Judgment
[1] Barry Hebert is charged with two counts, the first, stealing money while armed with an offensive weapon and, the second, having his face masked with the intention to commit an indictable offence. These charges arise from a robbery of a Shell gas station and convenience store located at the intersection of Arthur Street and Leland Street in Thunder Bay. The robbery occurred on April 22, 2014. The Shell station had a digital video surveillance system operating that evening. The video was shot from three different angles. The quality of the video was excellent. It is in colour. From observing the video it is very easy to understand what happened at the Shell station that evening. It is not disputed that the Shell was robbed by two men. The issue for this trial was whether or not the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Hebert is one of the two men who robbed the Shell.
[2] The evidence at this trial was given by nine witnesses, all called by the Crown. There were three lay witnesses, five Thunder Bay police officers, and one expert witness on the issue of shoe impressions. Expert DNA report evidence from the Centre for Forensic Science was filed on consent.
[3] The Shell is a typical 24 hour gas bar one could encounter throughout the province. It has a number of gas pumps. It has a relatively large convenience store with a number of aisles. It sells the usual convenience store sundries including lottery tickets. One employee works in the store at all times. It is brightly lit in the evening.
[4] The video shows two persons entering the convenience store portion of the station through the front doors. The two persons are shown approaching the front door from a camera mounted above the outside gas pumps at 11:16 p.m. on April 22, 2014. One of the persons holds the door for the other as they both enter. The attendant at that point is behind the counter. From the video, you can see that the two persons are wearing the same kinds of clothing: black hoodies and grey sweat pants. Their faces are covered by bandanas. There was no issue between Crown and defence that the two persons were male.
[5] The attendant working that night, Garrett Kuchiak, testified. He was shown the video. His testimony assisted in the interpretation of the video. It is fair to say that certain aspects of his testimony were uncontroverted. These aspects would relate to a narrative as to what is seen on the video as far as the movements of the two robbers. Certain aspects of his testimony were hotly contested, for example, his express evidence about the identity of one of the two persons.
[6] The first person through the door is holding a hatchet. This person was referred to by the attendant and by counsel in their submissions as the "First Guy". The attendant referred to the second person through the door as the "Second Guy". I will maintain these general descriptions of the two persons who robbed the Shell.
[7] The Second Guy is shown on the video to be holding a small green duffel or gym type bag with a yellow logo on the side. The Second Guy was wearing blue running shoes with bright yellow laces. Both men are wearing black hoodies and grey sweat pants and had their faces covered with bandanas. On the front of the First Guy's grey sweat pants were large black letters on the left leg running top to bottom that read "PUMA".
[8] The First Guy pointed the hatchet in an aggressive position toward the attendant immediately after he came through the front door and walked quickly toward the counter. Both persons went behind the counter and told the attendant to sit on the ground, facing them. From the video and from Mr. Kuchiak's testimony, I find he was terrified at this point.
[9] There are two safes at the station. They are immediately behind the counter, out of view of patrons. They are situated one above the other. At the time the two persons entered the store, the top safe was open. This is clear from the video taken from above the counter.
[10] There was cash of approximately $1,000.00 and scratch lottery tickets located in the top safe. The cash was grabbed by the Second Guy.
[11] The two persons then ran out from behind the counter. The First Guy returned to rip out a landline phone that sits behind a lottery terminal.
[12] The two persons then ran out of the store and turned east and ran out of view. The robbery took about 27 seconds from the time the two persons entered the front door to when they exited the front door.
[13] Mr. Kuchiak then ran to the front door and locked it. He then took out his cell phone and called the police. The police arrived about ten minutes later and began the investigation.
[14] The first witness for the Crown was Jackie Goodwin. She is the operator of the Shell. It was not disputed that the Shell was robbed and she, as operator, was deprived of property as the result of the robbery. She described in general the operation of the gas bar. It is a 24 hour a day operation. There is typically one person working at any given time. There are four shifts:
7 am to 1 pm; 1 pm to 6 pm; 6 pm to 11 pm; 11 pm to 7 am.
[15] At the beginning of any shift, the one employee working in the store is required to count the lottery tickets in the upper safe. This requires the safe to be open. A $1,000.00 float is kept in this safe. The lower safe is accessible only to Ms. Goodwin as operator and not to the counter staff.
[16] Ms. Goodwin confirmed Mr. Hebert was employed by the Shell from December 27, 2013, until February 26, 2014. He did not show up for a shift on that day. He returned to work several days later but was terminated for his failure to show up for his shift.
[17] The second witness for the Crown was the attendant, Mr. Garrett Kuchiak. In addition to his evidence which I have noted, he gave other testimony. In general, this can be described as "identification evidence". The degree to which I should or can rely on this aspect of his testimony was contested by the Crown and defence.
[18] During his phone call to the police immediately after the two men left the store, it came to Mr. Kuchiak's mind that he could identify one of the two persons he has just encountered. He testified he told the officer on the phone that he thought the person's name was "Barry". He could not immediately remember Barry's last name. He did, however, remember that Barry had worked at the Shell previously.
[19] Mr. Kuchiak agreed in cross-examination that his encounters with Barry were limited. He knew him only from work. He agreed he had encountered him only during shift changes. He agreed he had only encountered Barry three times or less. He agreed that during the 27 seconds the robbery was taking place, it did not come to his mind that Barry was one of the two persons who had just threatened him with a hatchet and told him to sit on the floor while they robbed the store. It only came to him about a minute later when he was speaking to the police on the telephone.
[20] When the police attended at the Shell, Mr. Kuchiak spoke to Constable Tachney (called as the final Crown witness) about what had just happened. Sometime during that conversation, Constable Tachney testified Mr. Kuchiak came up with Barry's last name as "Hebert". Mr. Kuchiak pronounced the name as "Herbert" when he testified.
[21] Mr. Kuchiak identified the First Guy as "Barry". He testified this person spoke to him. Mr. Kuchiak testified the second person did not speak at all. Mr. Kuchiak agreed that the only portions of the First Guy's face that he could see were his eyes and a portion of his forehead. Mr. Kuchiak recalled that Mr. Hebert had a tattoo on his neck. Mr. Kuchiak did not see the tattoo that evening because the necks of the First Guy and the Second Guy were covered by bandanas.
[22] Constables Thomas Blake, James Bryson and Tachney were on scene at the Shell station shortly after the robbery took place. The police were not able to find any finger prints on the door or anywhere else inside the convenience store. The video clearly shows neither person wearing gloves.
[23] However, the officers were able to find three shoe impressions which they carefully preserved. The shoe impressions were immediately to the side of the counter and were in an area where the two persons are shown to have walked, both according to the video and the testimony of Mr. Kuchiak.
[24] The next day, April 23, 2014, the police received an anonymous tip about clothing strewn on the ground in the immediate vicinity of the Shell. Constable Primmer attended the scene. She testified at the trial. Photographs of the scene were entered as exhibits on the trial.
[25] The photos clearly show two black hoodies, two pairs of grey sweat pants and a small green duffel or gym type bag with a yellow logo on the side, lying on the ground in front of an apartment building. The apartment building is one block north of the Shell station. As mentioned, the Shell station is located at the intersection of Arthur and Leland Streets. The apartment building is located at the intersection of Leland and Donald Streets.
[26] The photos taken at that location show the clothes strewn irregularly on the ground. They are arrayed in a manner that suggested to me they were quickly discarded by the wearers. Upon closer observations, one of the pair of grey sweat pants had large black letters on the left leg running top to bottom that read "PUMA".
[27] The items of clothing and the bag were sent to the Centre for Forensic Science for analysis.
[28] On April 24, 2014, the Thunder Bay police got a phone call from a homeowner. This person's property is located in the vicinity of the intersection of Leland and Victoria Streets. This is two blocks north of the Shell station. The homeowner Brenda Godfrey testified at the trial.
[29] She testified she normally takes her dog out for walk after 11 pm. One evening in April, in 2014—she could not be certain about the exact date—she found a pair of blue Adidas running shoes with bright yellow laces in her backyard. They were located about five feet from her back door. She phoned to report this to police after seeing television reports of the robbery which pointed out that one of the robbers was wearing blue running shoes.
[30] The police seized the shoes at 7:35 p.m. on April 24, 2014. Constable Bryson met with Ms. Godfrey to pick up the shoes. At that time, Ms. Godfrey told him that she had found the shoes on April 22, 2014, at approximately 11:45 p.m. when she went to let her dog out.
[31] The shoes were photographed. A photo of the shoes was entered as an exhibit at this trial. The shoes were sent to the Centre for Forensic Science for analysis. They were also sent to an expert identification officer with the OPP for a comparison of the shoes with the impressions found at the Shell station that evening.
[32] The analysis evidence from the Centre for Forensic Science was entered on consent. In summary, Mr. Hebert's DNA was found on the grey sweat pants that the Crown witnesses identified as the "Champs" sweat pants, (not the PUMA sweat pants) as well as on the bright yellow laces of the blue Adidas shoes found by the homeowner.
[33] Constable Albert MacDonald was qualified to give expert opinion evidence on the issue of footwear impression comparisons. His qualifications to give expert evidence on this topic were not challenged by the defence. Constable MacDonald compared the shoe impressions recovered from the scene with the blue Adidas shoes. He opined that only one impression could be related to the blue Adidas shoes. He opined that based on his training and observations that the blue shoes could be associated with the impressions found by the officers who attended the Shell that evening.
The positions of the parties
[34] The Crown argues it has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Hebert was one of the two persons who robbed the Shell on the evening of April 22, 2014. The Crown argues that it has a credible, reliable witness in Mr. Kuchiak who gave recognition evidence which is somewhat different than identification evidence but nevertheless places Mr. Hebert at the scene as one of the robbers. The Crown acknowledges that this recognition evidence on its own would not be sufficient to prove Mr. Hebert's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt given the recognized frailties of identification evidence. However, the Crown points to the fact that Mr. Kuchiak had met Mr. Hebert previously, albeit briefly, had almost immediately identified him to police after the robbery, at least by his first name, and shortly thereafter came up with his last name, and that he did have the opportunity to be in very close proximity to both of the robbers as evidenced by his testimony and the video footage.
[35] The Crown says this evidence together with other circumstantial evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Hebert is guilty of the two counts with which he is charged. The Crown points to the very distinctive running shoes worn by the Second Guy, clearly shown in the video. These shoes were located in a back yard of a residence within two blocks of the gas station on the night of the robbery. The forensic evidence tendered by the Crown indicates an impression of a shoe found at the scene can be associated to the blue running shoes with yellow laces located in the general area of the robbery. Expert evidence tendered by record indicated Mr. Hebert's DNA was found on the laces of one of the blue running shoes.
[36] The Crown also points to the clothing and the gym bag found a block away from the Shell station within 48 hours of the robbery. The two pairs of grey sweat pants, the two black hoodies and the gym bag are similar to the clothing shown to worn by the two robbers. The gym bag had a distinct yellow marking that can be clearly shown on the video and matches the bag that was found.
[37] The Crown relies on its expert report which indicates Mr. Hebert's DNA was found on one of the pairs of sweat pants that were identified as the "Champs" sweat pants.
[38] The Crown argues there is no other reasonable conclusion to draw from the circumstantial evidence, that Mr. Hebert was wearing the clothes in question, on the night in question, and was one of the two participants in the robbery in question.
[39] The defence acknowledges that the evidence of Mr. Kuchiak was credible. However, Mr. Hebert takes exception with Mr. Kuchiak's reliability. He does so for a number of reasons. First, Mr. Kuchiak identified Barry as the First Guy. However, it was the Second Guy who was wearing the blue running shoes that had the DNA which matched Mr. Hebert's. Second, Mr. Kuchiak admitted he had only met Mr. Hebert a few times and then only briefly. Third, Mr. Kuchiak admitted he was scared during the incident, which took place very quickly. Fourth, Mr. Kuchiak admitted that he only told the police it "may be Barry" when he first spoke to the police on the phone that night. Fifth, this identification only came to Mr. Kuchiak after the completion of the robbery, during the course of his initial call to police reporting the robbery.
[40] For all of these reasons, the defence argues that the identification evidence or recognition evidence is not reliable.
[41] The defence also argues that the DNA evidence is inconclusive and therefore as circumstantial evidence it affords a number of other reasonable conclusions other than Mr. Hebert wearing the clothes and shoes shown to be worn by the robbers.
[42] It is important to note the DNA sample from the clothing came from a blood stain. The defence points to the fact that Mr. Hebert's DNA was found on the outside of the items of clothing, both the shoes and the pants. This, according to the defence position, is to be contrasted with a circumstance where a DNA sample is located on the inside of a particular piece of clothing. The defence argues that it is possible to conclude that because the DNA was found on the outside of the items, it is reasonable to conclude it was cast off DNA as opposed to DNA that was deposited by the wearer. The argument follows that because it was cast off, it was not proven when it was deposited and this creates a reasonable doubt that it was Mr. Hebert who was wearing the clothes and the shoes at the time the robbery occurred.
[43] For these reasons, Mr. Hebert argues the Crown has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and he is entitled to an acquittal.
The law
[44] There were a number of legal issues where the parties were in agreement. It was conceded by the defence that because a weapon was clearly utilized in this robbery, each perpetrator is equally responsible for its use in the offence. It was agreed in this case that although two persons were involved, I had only to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Hebert was one of the two people, as contrasted with having to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Hebert was specifically the First Guy or the Second Guy. (R v. Thatcher, 1987 CanLII 53 (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 652.)
[45] With regard to the assessment of the evidence of Mr. Kuchiak, both counsel relied on the decision of Ducharme J. in R v. Powell, 2007 CanLII 45918 (ON SC), [2007] O.J. No. 4196. In particular, both counsel pointed to the 13 different factors eloquently laid out by Ducharme J. at para. 15 of his judgment. It was readily acknowledged by the Crown that there are inherent frailties in identification evidence.
[46] Counsel agreed that the totality of the evidence must be assessed against the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
[47] With respect to circumstantial evidence, in order to base a conviction on this type of evidence alone, I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the only rational inference that can be drawn from the proven facts is the guilt of the accused. If I find that alternative rational inferences can be drawn from the evidence, the defence will have raised a reasonable doubt. (R v. Cooper, [1978] 1 SCR 42 as set out by E.M. Morgan J. in R v. Bobb, [2015] O.J. No. 5334.
Analysis
[48] During submissions, both counsel made a number of concessions regarding the facts for which there is no dispute and which accordingly I find for the purpose of this decision. There is no dispute that an owner of property, being a Shell station on Arthur Street, was robbed of $1,000.00 the evening of April 22,2014.
[49] There is no dispute that two males were involved in the robbery. Based on s. 21 of the Criminal Code, both males are responsible and therefore liable for the use of a weapon in the commission of the offence.
[50] There is no dispute, and I so find, that the two males involved were both wearing black hoodies and grey sweat pants. Both males had the majority of their faces covered by bandanas.
[51] There is no dispute that the First Guy was wearing grey sweat pants with the logo "PUMA" in black letters on one of the legs. The Second Guy was wearing blue running shoes with bright yellow laces. The Second Guy grabbed the cash from the safe. The robbery took place over a period of 27 seconds.
[52] There is no dispute Mr. Hebert was employed at the Shell that was robbed from December 27, 2013, until February 26, 2014.
[53] I will now deal with the areas of the evidence that were disputed by the parties.
[54] The first issue is the reliability of Mr. Kuchiak. In my view, he was a credible witness. He gave his evidence in a straightforward and forthright manner. He readily conceded points in cross-examination such as his inability to say with absolute certainty that the person he remembered as "Barry" was in fact one of the persons involved in the robbery. He admitted he was frightened and the event happened quickly.
[55] His "recognition" that the person involved "might be Barry", whom he recognized from his working at the Shell previously, came very quickly after the robbery. There was no opportunity for him to be influenced by others or to have time to think about it. It was told to the police immediately upon his first report. In my view, this bolsters the reliability of the identification aspect of Mr. Kuchiak's testimony.
[56] The store was well lit. He was very close to both robbers as indicated by his testimony and the video evidence. He had an opportunity to observe both persons up close. Mr. Kuchiak had met Mr. Hebert previously. The quality of the identification was precise as he actually called Mr. Hebert by his first name.
[57] The second issue is whether or not there is a rational explanation from the proven facts regarding the circumstantial evidence that raises a reasonable doubt.
[58] Dealing first with the clothing and the bag discovered by the police within 48 hours after the robbery, these items were found by the police a day and a half after the robbery, lying in front of an apartment building within a block of the Shell station in plain sight. Black hoodies and grey sweat pants are fairly common items. The gym bag, however, was unique. It had a unique yellow logo on the side. You can clearly see this logo from the video evidence when you see a bag being carried in the hands of the Second Guy both coming in and out of the store. Also, one pair of the sweat pants had a unique logo, "PUMA", on one leg. That logo can be seen clearly on the sweat pants worn by the First Guy.
[59] The unique bag was found with the clothes. Based on the video evidence and the time and proximity where the hoodies and the two pair of grey pants and gym bag were discovered by police, I find that the hoodies and the sweat pants were the items of clothing worn by the robbers. There is no other rational explanation as to how items of this sort together ended up being found within a block of the robbery, other than the robbers took the clothes off and left them with the gym bag shortly after they left the store following the robbery.
[60] I now deal with the issue of the blue shoes with bright yellow laces. It is clear from the video evidence that the Second Guy was wearing blue running shoes with bright yellow laces. Based on this evidence I find, in fact, the Second Guy was wearing blue running shoes with bright yellow laces.
[61] Also, I find that the Second Guy was wearing what the police call the "Champs" sweat pants. I make this finding because from the video evidence one can clearly see the words "PUMA" on the leg of the sweat pants worn by the First Guy. The Second Guy was wearing grey sweat pants, too. Two pairs of sweat pants, one with a "PUMA" logo on the label were found in the vicinity of the robbery. As the pants were found together, I can see no other rational explanation other than both robbers took off their pants at the same time and left them outside the apartment building together with the black hoodies and the gym bag with the distinct yellow logo.
[62] An independent witness found a pair of blue running shoes with yellow laces the very night of the robbery, in her back yard, two blocks from the Shell station. The police seized these shoes. They compared the sole of these shoes to shoe impressions found at the scene, in the proximity of where the video evidence shows the two robbers traveled. The impression was sufficiently similar to the soles of the shoes, for the police expert to testify it was his opinion the shoes could be associated with the crime scene.
[63] I also was able to view photographs of the blue running shoes with the bright yellow laces and compare those photos to the video evidence.
[64] From this evidence, I find the blue shoes with the bright yellow laces recovered by the police, subjected to testing both for impressions and DNA, were the blue running shoes with bright yellow laces worn by the Second Guy. In my view, there is no other rational explanation for how these shoes, which made impressions that are associated with the scene, could have been found so close to the scene of the crime, except by being placed in the backyard of a property in the vicinity by the Second Guy on the night of the robbery.
[65] I am then left with the proven fact that Mr. Hebert's DNA is on the blue shoes with the bright yellow laces and a pair of grey sweat pants—the "Champs" sweat pants which were found by the police in the proximity of the Shell station. I have found that both of these items were worn by the Second Guy.
[66] The defence argues that because the DNA was found on the outside of these items, it is possible that the DNA was placed there at some other time well prior to the night in question. There was no evidence led at trial that was in the nature of a direct observation by a person, of Mr. Hebert actually wearing the blue running shoes with the bright yellow laces and the grey sweat pants.
[67] This DNA evidence is therefore circumstantial.
[68] There was no expert evidence led that would allow me to differentiate between an interpretation of DNA found on the inside or the outside of the clothes as to the issue of when the DNA was deposited on the clothes. Of course, the defence does not have to lead any evidence. The expert DNA evidence came in by way of reports on consent. The authors of the reports were not called to testify.
[69] What is proven, however, is that the DNA was on the pants and shoes that were found within the vicinity a day and a half after the robbery took place. In my view, the DNA evidence indicates Mr. Hebert was in contact with these items at some point prior to them being found by the police. Therefore, he has a proven connection to these items.
[70] I am then left with the proposition that because it was not proven when the DNA was deposited, that fact leads to a reasonable doubt about whether or not Mr. Hebert was the wearer of the clothes on the night in question. There was no evidence about another suspect in this matter other than the two people seen on the video. The defence did not argue that I had any reason to conclude that some third party other than Mr. Hebert was wearing the shoes and pants that evening. In my view, the defence is asking me to make a logical leap from the proven fact that the date of the deposit of DNA is unknown to the conclusion that therefore I must have a reasonable doubt about proof that it was Mr. Hebert who was wearing the shoes and pants that evening.
[71] Despite the able argument of counsel for Mr. Hebert, I cannot accept the defence argument because in my view it calls for speculation. There was no evidence about anybody else wearing clothes owned by Mr. Hebert. There was no evidence about Mr. Hebert discarding these items at some other time. It has only been proven that he was in contact with these items at some point prior to the items being found by the police.
[72] However I am dealing with the totality of all the evidence in this matter. In my view, there is no other rational explanation for the DNA being on the "Champs" sweat pants and the blue shoes worn by the Second Guy except that Mr. Hebert was wearing the items at some point in time.
[73] Also, I have proven facts about the manner in which the robbery was carried out. It was conducted at lightning speed. It occurred shortly after 11 pm, a time when employees or former employees of the station knew or would have known represented a regular shift change time. Employees, or persons who were employees, would know that the safe for the store remains open around this time to allow the clerks to take inventory of lottery tickets and to count their float. This information would be known to Mr. Hebert as he was a former employee. I accept the evidence of the store manager that this was routine procedure explained to all employees and practised by those when they worked at the Shell. I find that the timing of the robbery was more than coincidental. I find it was carried out by someone who had more than a passing familiarity with the operation of the store.
[74] I also then have the identification evidence of Mr. Kuchiak. This recognition evidence along with the manner in which the robbery was conducted, together with the fact that I have found these items were the ones being worn by the Second Guy, leads me to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Hebert was wearing the blue shoes with the bright yellow laces and the grey "Champs" sweat pants and was indeed the Second Guy. The issue of a lack of evidence of when exactly the DNA was deposited does not cause me to have a reasonable doubt that Mr. Hebert committed the robbery on April 22, 2014. For me, the DNA is just one part of the overall picture.
[75] I appreciate that Mr. Kuchiak was specific about his belief that Mr. Hebert was the First Guy, which was not consistent with the findings I have made about Mr. Hebert being the Second Guy. However, the other aspects of Mr. Kuchiak's testimony lead me to find it reliable and do not raise a reasonable doubt about the fact that Mr. Kuchiak identified "Barry" almost immediately as one of the men who robbed the Shell. This makes the identification reliable and sufficient, together with the other evidence, to convince me that the Crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
[76] Therefore, based on all the evidence in this case, as noted above, I find Barry Hebert entered the Shell in the company of a second person at approximately 11 pm on April 22, 2014. I find his face was masked at the time. I find the masking was intentional and it was done for the purpose of concealing his identity when he was committing a robbery.
[77] I find Mr. Hebert was not holding a hatchet during the robbery. However, by the provisions of s. 21 of the Criminal Code, his actions, proven both by the testimony of Mr. Kuchiak and the video, evidence an intention to carry out a robbery in common with the First Guy who was holding the hatchet and pointed it in an threatening manner toward Mr. Kuchiak when he first entered the Shell.
[78] I find in fact Mr. Hebert grabbed the cash, approximately $1,000.00, from the open safe and ran out of the store. He was not legally entitled to those monies. He stole the money. He committed robbery.
[79] For these reasons, I find Mr. Hebert guilty as charged with respect to both count one and count two of the indictment before the Court.
_______"original signed by"
The Hon. Mr. Justice F.B. Fitzpatrick
Released: February 9, 2016
CITATION: R v. Hebert, 2016 ONSC 994
COURT FILE NO.: CR-14-0104
DATE: 2016-02-09
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Her Majesty The Queen,
- and -
Barry Ryan Hebert,
Accused
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Fitzpatrick J.
Released: February 9, 2016
/mls