COURT FILE NO.: CR-17-0343-00 DATE: 2018-07-17

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Jennifer Goulin for the Crown

• and –

CHARLES CROFT

Paul Erskine and Marlene LeBlanc for C. Croft

HEARD: July 16, 2018

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

D.E HARRIS J.

[1] This is a case of fratricide. Charles Croft killed his half brother, Wayne Croft, by stabbing him with a steak knife during a fist fight.

[2] Charles Croft was charged by indictment with one count of murder but was convicted by the jury of manslaughter. Fratricide is a tragic offence. We expect brothers to support each other, love one another, to be bonded by blood for life. Fratricide is a tearing apart of the family fibre. There is something primordial about the crime. While many examples of fratricide in literature and mythology do not have a clear motive, jealously is usually a part of it. Cain and Abel is the most famous case. According to the Bible, they were the first brothers, the sons of Adam and Eve.

[3] At the manslaughter sentencing hearing, the Crown suggested a sentence of 8-9 years incarceration while the defence argued that 5 years is the appropriate term.

THE DEATH OF WAYNE CROFT

[4] The evidence showed that Charles had met Annie Scopie, the mother of Wayne Croft’s young child, Ashley, just days before the killing. Wayne had told Annie that he did not mind if she spent some time with Charles but that he did not want to see him. The brothers had not seen each other in some years and did not get along it seems.

[5] Wayne, Annie and Wayne and Charles’ father Archie all lived in the same apartment complex at 2111 Roche Court in Mississauga. On the night of the crime July 31, 2015 going into August 1, 2015, Charles was in Annie’s apartment drinking with her and her friend Lisa Clarke on the balcony. At about 11:00 p.m., Wayne Croft walked below the balcony where Charles, Annie and Lisa were sitting, listening to music. As he walked by underneath them, Charles yelled “faggot” at Wayne and spat over the railing. Wayne ignored him. He continued to the parking garage and drove to work.

[6] There was evidence from Lisa Clarke that Charles afterwards said that Wayne owed him money. Lisa said that Charles said, “He’ll get his.” He was angry. Charles admitted at this trial that he said, “he will get his” and “karma is a bitch.” He denied that there was bad feeling between the brothers.

[7] The “faggot” comment and the spitting over the railing did not come out of nowhere. Something prompted Charles to call his brother a “faggot.” An epithet of this kind from Charles’ mouth, in these circumstances, was indisputably intended to be an insult.

[8] Instead of being at work for a full shift, Wayne came back at approximately 1:20 a.m. probably because of the anger against Charles growing in him. Video surveillance shows that Wayne went to his apartment and retrieved an expandable baton not unlike the type used by police forces. In the video he can be seen tucking the baton in the back of his jeans. He is seen frenetically pressing the elevator button to speed its travel. He was hyped up. He went outside and called up to Annie on the balcony to let him into her apartment.

[9] Annie and Lisa, unaware of the baton, nonetheless knew Wayne’s angry demand meant trouble. He was furious at Charles. The two women planned to head Wayne off at the elevator near their fourth floor apartment and calm him down. This failed. Wayne sped past them, barging into the apartment and physically pushing Lisa out of the way with his hands as she tried to block the doorway. He ran straight out onto the balcony where he knew Charles was waiting.

[10] According to Annie, Wayne said to Charles: “Do you have anything to say?” Charles said, “Yes I do.” The two grabbed each other by the shoulders. Charles swung Wayne around so that Annie could see Wayne’s face.

[11] The fight that ensued was an obvious mismatch. Wayne was about three years older at 49 years old but Annie testified that Wayne was more muscular and was taller. He was in good shape. He could carry 50 pound bags of potatoes up and down the stairs at the apartment complex. Wayne looked like quite a powerful man in the elevator videos.

[12] Wayne struck first, punching Charles in the face. Charles punched Wayne back. Wayne kicked Charles in the shin. Charles pushed Wayne against the wall. Wayne continued to punch Charles in the face. Charles was on the defensive. He punched Wayne primarily in the ribs. Wayne threw more punches than Charles.

[13] The evidence from both Annie and from Charles who testified in his own defence is that Wayne had the upper hand in the fight. He was hitting Charles repeatedly in the face. Annie saw blood on Charles’ face and the pictures after the fact showed this as well.

[14] Annie said that Charles put Wayne in a bear hug. Wayne said, “Let me go.” Charles said, “I could do this all day.” Wayne emitted a big grunt and it was clear to Annie that something was wrong. She told Charles to let him go which he did. Wayne stumbled, holding his left arm to his ribs.

[15] Annie described Wayne suddenly collapsing into her arms. She did not see the stabbing and thought that he may have had a heart attack.

[16] Lisa Clarke said that someone should phone 911. Charles called using his cell phone. Annie took the phone to give the address of the apartment. Emergency personnel arrived shortly afterwards. Tragically, Wayne succumbed quickly to his injuries.

[17] The evidence showed that Charles stabbed Wayne during the fight. At some point, Charles picked up an old cheap steak knife which was on the balcony. There was a dispute at trial whether it was before Wayne came out on to confront Charles or whether it was in the midst of the fight. In his evidence, Charles admitted stabbing Wayne and said that it was in self-defence.

[18] The pathology evidence described one stab wound just left of the centre of the body, penetrating 4 to 4.5 centimeters. It nicked the heart. Wayne died of internal bleeding in a matter of minutes.

THE TRIAL

[19] The defence was self-defence premised on the baton being used against Charles and evidence from Charles that he felt in jeopardy of being killed in the fist fight. If the jury rejected self-defence, the other issue was whether Charles possessed the intent to kill or the slightly reduced intent to cause bodily harm which he knew was likely to cause death. If so, he was guilty of murder. If not, he was guilty of manslaughter.

[20] I agree with the jury’s verdict of manslaughter. The two problems with self-defence was that using a knife in the context of a fist fight, even one in which the accused was badly outclassed, is disproportionate as a repelling force. Furthermore, the baton evidence was weak. Annie did not see the baton being used nor did she hear it being expanded or retracted. Demonstrated in court, it makes a loud, unmistakable sound when it is expanded and also when retracted. It was found by emergency personnel immediately after the incident unexpanded on the floor of the balcony. It likely fell from Wayne Croft’s jeans when he was hoisted onto the stretcher.

[21] Although Charles testified to having injuries consistent with being hit with a blunt object, this was not credible in light of the weakness of the baton evidence. He did not complain of these blunt force injuries in the aftermath.

[22] Under my jurisdiction to make interstitial findings of fact under Section 724(2) of the Criminal Code, I conclude that Charles Croft’s actions were primarily for the purpose of self-defence but that they were disproportionate to the threat. Ultimately, as the jury found, the stabbing was an unreasonable and unjustifiable act in self-defence.

[23] On the other hand, the evidence that the mental element for murder was lacking was thoroughly persuasive. The only evidence supporting murder was the type and location of the wound and the pre-incident comment from Charles that Wayne would get his. None of this evidence was strong. In fact, the nature of the wound was stronger support for an accidental killing than it was for an intentional one.

[24] It is only a slight exaggeration to call the single stab wound that caused death a freak accident. It was lower and closer to the midline than a layperson would think the heart is on the body. The pathologist testified that he did not know, until he went to medical school, that the heart is unprotected by the rib cage in that location. This is specialized knowledge that Charles could not possibly have realized. The wound was not too deep—4 to 4.5 centimeters--and there was only one. It was not a wound one would expect to be made by a person who was intending to kill or who had foresight of death.

[25] The other evidence stacking up against the presence of an intent to kill was formidable. The accused had been drinking. He said that he had about 8 beers between when he arrived and the fight. Annie Scopie estimated that he had drunk 6-12 beers over the night. He was walking and talking without difficulty but she would have been concerned if he were to drive.

[26] Charles said he was “functional” and not “drunk, drunk.” I believe that he was downplaying this evidence in order to better present self-defence.

[27] Charles acted instinctively, carried away by the intensity of the fight and influenced to some degree by alcohol consumption. He was under attack from his brother and was felt desperate. Afterwards, when it was clear that Wayne was badly hurt, Charles was asked to call 911 and did on his cell phone. He brought a glass of water for his brother to drink but Wayne was sadly beyond assistance from the internal bleeding which would very soon kill him.

[28] Justice Sproat ruled in the previous trial which ended in a hung jury that part of Charles Croft’s after the fact statement to the police was involuntary and hence inadmissible: see R. v. Croft 2018 ONSC 511. The parties accepted this ruling and there was no application under Section 653.1 of the Code to reconsider it. The prosecution was permitted to cross-examine Charles Croft on the parts of the statement held to be voluntary by Justice Sproat.

[29] Justice Sproat’s ruling recounts that after being taken to the police station from Annie’s apartment, Charles Croft was told that his brother was dead. Charles could not believe his brother was dead and was convinced the authorities were playing a joke on him. He repeated this many times. This state of disbelief lasted for a period of two hours. Interspersed with this, Mr. Croft asked for a gun and urged the police to shoot him.

[30] Charles Croft was in shock. Although this evidence did not go before the jury, it is formidable evidence of a lack of intent to kill, in my opinion.

[31] I gave a “rolled up” instruction to the jury combining any residual effect of the failed affirmative self-defence issue with alcohol consumption and the emotional heat of the ongoing fight. The jury found that the Crown had failed to prove the mental element for murder.

[32] It is arguable that a murder conviction would have been unreasonable under Section 686(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, although this ground of appeal is a notoriously difficult one. Notwithstanding this, a finding of guilt on murder would have been wrong in my view. The single knife wound in an unprotected location not generally known to contain the heart in conjunction with the other factors had all the earmarks of an accidental killing.

THE OFFENDER

[33] Mr. Croft is going to be 49 years old in a few days. He was born in Guyana and brought up by his mother, a justice of the peace. He never knew his father as a child. His father left Guyana when he was an infant. His stepfather was a positive male role model growing up.

[34] Mr. Croft reported a good childhood with strong maternal influences at home. There were four maternal aunts and a maternal grandmother. He has six siblings, five of them including Wayne have the same mother but a different father. His siblings are all professionals, including three nurses, one lawyer and an engineer.

[35] In 1988, at age 19, he was sponsored by his father along with his older brother to immigrate to Canada. He lived with his father, stepmother and two half-brothers, including Wayne. There was some discord with Wayne over the years.

[36] The living arrangements were strained because Charles’ stepmother did not welcome the two brothers into the home. There was verbal and emotional abuse from the stepfather. On occasion, the stepfather would lock Charles and his oldest brother out of the house and force them to sleep in the garage. Charles has not spoken to his father since this offence.

[37] After a year, Charles Croft moved out to live with his girlfriend. They had two children who are now young adults but their relationship dissolved in the late 1990’s. In 1999, Charles Croft was the victim of a machete attack. He told the pre-sentence report author that as a result he lost his home, business and family. Mental health issues developed.

[38] Mr. Croft has had some short-lived relationships with women since breaking up with his girlfriend almost 20 years ago now. He maintains a close relationship with his mother back in Guyana and has always received unconditional support from her.

[39] After secondary school in Guyana, Charles upgraded his education in Canada at community college. He then entered the workforce as a carpenter and cabinet maker. He was quite successful. He showed me some of his drafting work during the sentencing hearing. Sadly, the machete attack caused PTSD and led him to enter the provincial disability program. Over the years, the offender has struggled with anger issues and has had trouble coping with his emotions and overwhelming feelings of stress. He has been treated and medicated over the years for depression, anxiety and PTSD.

[40] The pre-sentence report and Mr. Croft’s criminal record convince me that he is an alcoholic, although since he has been incarcerated, probably not a practising one. He has three convictions for drinking and driving over the period 2005-2010. Mr. Croft admitted to heavy drinking for a five year period after he was attacked around 2000. He was in a residential treatment program for six months in 2006. There have been several other assessments over the years.

[41] On the subject of his criminal record, he also has quite a number of fail to attend court and fail to comply with bail convictions. Mr. Croft has a significant criminal record for assaults. In 2013 there is an assault with a weapon for which he received a 90 day sentence. I am told that this was a slashing type assault with a knife and the trial judge gave a lenient sentence to preserve Mr. Croft’s job. There were two assaults in 2014 and a fail to comply with probation. Credit for time served, 97 days, was granted and the sentence was time served. At the time of the commission of the offence, Charles was under a weapons prohibition order.

[42] I agree with the assessment of the pre-sentence report author where she wrote,

[Mr. Croft’s] conflicts with the law stem, not only from a history of alcohol use, but [are] also indicative of anger control issues. The subject’s inability to cope with emotional and past traumatic events has led to poor problem-solving and impulsivity resulting in domestic violence, family discord and breaches of court orders.

THE VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT

[43] The loss of Wayne Croft has had an enormous impact on his friends and family. Annie Scopie is the mother of Wayne Croft’s son Avery, now almost 4 years old. Ashley was in his crib when this crime was committed by Charles Croft in his mother Annie’s apartment.

[44] Annie read her emotionally affecting victim impact statement at the sentencing hearing. She said that she, Avery and her two older children by another father have been destroyed by the loss of Wayne. Annie could not endure staying in the apartment at 2111 Roche Court and so they left. She has been staying place to place and in shelters since. Annie is deeply saddened that her son will grow up without knowing his father.

[45] Annie’s two older children, Khylee and Rhylee, also said that Wayne Croft was the best stepfather they could have had and that they miss him very much.

CREDIT FOR PRE-TRIAL CUSTODY

[46] Mr. Croft has been in custody since the offence date, August 1, 2015. This is two weeks short of 3 years. By virtue of the R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26 credit of 1.5, this is, rounding up slightly, the equivalent to four and a half years of a judicially imposed sentence. The parties have agreed on a three-month period for enhanced Duncan credit because of poor jail conditions, bringing the total time spent in custody with the two modes of credit to four years and nine months.

[47] The Crown’s sentencing recommendation of 8 to 9 years, would require a sentence to be imposed of somewhere in the range of three to four years. Mr. Croft would serve his sentence in the penitentiary. This is a step I would take only if it was absolutely necessary to fulfill the pertinent sentencing principles.

[48] Prison itself is likely to have a detrimental effect on an offender and to frustrate rehabilitation. Chief Justice Lamer said in R. v. Proulx 2000 SCC 5, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61,

16… Prison has been characterized by some as a finishing school for criminals and as ill-preparing them for reintegration into society: see generally Canadian Committee on Corrections, supra, at p. 314; Correctional Service of Canada, A Summary of Analysis of Some Major Inquiries on Corrections — 1938 to 1977 (1982), at p. iv. At para. 57 [of Gladue], Cory and Iacobucci JJ. held:

Thus, it may be seen that although imprisonment is intended to serve the traditional sentencing goals of separation, deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, there is widespread consensus that imprisonment has not been successful in achieving some of these goals. Overincarceration is a long-standing problem that has been many times publicly acknowledged but never addressed in a systematic manner by Parliament. In recent years, compared to other countries, sentences of imprisonment in Canada have increased at an alarming rate.

[49] Furthermore, the penitentiary system houses the more serious and dangerous offenders. The negative effect on an inmate is likely to be substantially worse than in the provincial system. Justice MacDonnell, a judge with vast experience in criminal law, in the context of deciding whether a youth should serve his sentence in a young offender facility or in a penitentiary, heard evidence about the rehabilitative resources available in each. He held that the penitentiary system,

…offers far less by way of rehabilitative programmes, treatment and resources than do either the provincial adult reformatory system or the young offender facilities, and that there is far less likelihood of reformation in a penitentiary. The evidence adduced in the case at bar supports that conventional wisdom, and is consistent with the judicial opinions which in recent years have often been expressed with respect to the prospects for rehabilitation in the three systems: see, e.g., R. v. Z.(M.A.) (1987), 1987 CanLII 6770 (ON CA), 35 C.C.C. (3d) 144 at pp. 154-5, 1 W.C.B. (2d) 343 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. H.(W.) (1989), 1989 CanLII 7162 (ON CA), 47 C.C.C. (3d) 72 at pp. 75-6, 69 C.R. (3d) 168, 31 O.A.C. 372 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Perry, supra.

R. v. R. (A.) (1993) 1993 CanLII 14682 (ON CJ), 18 W.C.B. (2d) 554, 81 C.C.C. (3d) 436, aff’d 1996 CarswellOnt 876 (C.A.)

[50] The R.(A.) decision is dated but I do not believe anything has changed significantly since it was written.

CONCLUSION

[51] The pertinent sentencing principles are denunciation, general deterrence and individual deterrence. General deterrence ought not to be ascendant, despite the seriousness of the offence. If liberty is to be taken away for utilitarian reasons, some rigor should be brought to bear in the assessment of its efficacy. Would another man in the situation of Charles Croft at the time of his crime be deterred by the sentence proposed? And would there be additional deterrent effect brought about by a sentence in the range recommended by the Crown as opposed to the range recommended by the defence? It is incumbent on a sentencing court to ask these difficult questions.

[52] In a case where alcohol impairment, impulsivity, anger and partial self-defence prompted the stab wound which killed Wayne Croft, will dissemination of the message to the public that a 8-9 year sentence will be imposed instead of the 5 years urged by the defence be expected to have any effect in the real world? I do not think in a case of this kind that it would: see the remarks of Justice Bertha Wilson in R. v. Hess; R. v. Nguyen 1990 CanLII 89 (SCC), [1990] S.C.J. No. 91, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 906 at paras. 24-27.

[53] It does a disservice to the criminal law and to the integrity of the sentencing process to perpetuate such a fiction. General deterrence has a part to play in criminal sentencing, but I believe it has only a minor role in a case like this.

[54] It is denunciation and individual deterrence which are paramount in this situation. Denunciation is of central importance. An affirmation of values by the imposition of a substantial jail sentence is vital in the tragic case of a loss of life. Individual deterrence is important here as well given the offender’s criminal record for assaults and the conclusions of the pre-sentence report author.

[55] What is Charles Croft’s moral blameworthiness? He egged on a fight and did not flee from his brother wraths when Wayne came up to the balcony. Even though Charles insulted him, the fact remains that Wayne eagerly and with reckless abandon started the fight and was pummelling Charles. If need be, he was prepared to go further with the expandable baton. Wayne was exceedingly angry and came home from work for the sole purpose of teaching Charles a lesson by physically attacking him.

[56] Charles was uncontrollably angry too. Nothing justified Charles going outside the bounds of the fight by escalating to the use of a knife. He was certainly losing the fight but he was not yet in significant danger of grave injury. As the jury found, his actions were unreasonable. But the context is crucial to fully appreciate Charles’ malicious addled decision to pick up that knife and then use it, ending in this senseless death.

[57] In this vicious furious scene of violence between the two brothers, Charles Croft killed Wayne Croft. It was suggested that he could not endure losing the fight or that he was showing off for the women. Who knows? There were probably a host of factors involved, self-defence being one of them.

[58] In summary, the aggravating circumstance of using a knife in a fist fight is to some degree mitigated by the fact the deceased initiated the fight and was badly beating Charles Croft. Furthermore, the aggravating circumstance of death by a stab wound has to be seen in the context of a single stab wound and, although in the vital torso area, it was nonetheless a tragically unlucky injury.

[59] The Crown agrees that Charles Croft is remorseful. I have no doubt about it. Apart from his remorse shown that night at the scene and in his pervasive disbelief and suicidal thoughts back at the police station, Charles in his elocution at the sentencing hearing again displayed genuine remorse for his actions. I would add that although Charles did not plead guilty and show his remorse in that way, there were triable issues in this case.

[60] I believe Charles Croft is a broken man. He may have been before this offence but he certainly is now. It was evident from his testimony, from his elocution and from his statement to the police. I believe that in his mind, Charles Croft will wear the shameful mark of the killing of his brother for the rest of his life.

[61] Mr. Croft has violence on his criminal record. That is a real concern. The Crown agrees, however, that this is not an aggravated manslaughter case, a categorization which generally results in a sentence in the 8-12 year range: see R. v. Clarke 2003 CanLII 28199 (ON CA), [2003] O.J. No. 1966 (C.A.).

[62] The general approach to a manslaughter sentencing was neatly summed up by my colleague Justice Hill in R. v. Hermiz 2007 CarswellOnt 2547, [2007] O.J. No. 1589, 73 W.C.B. (2d) 698 (S.C.),

11 It has long been recognized that the crime of manslaughter attracts a broad range of sentence depending on the circumstances of the offence and offender: R. v. Stone (1999), 1999 CanLII 688 (SCC), 134 C.C.C. (3d) 353 (S.C.C.) at 446 (the “broad sentencing range for manslaughter”); R. v. Clarke, 2003 CanLII 28199 (ON CA), [2003] O.J. No. 1966 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 7 (”The range of sentence for the offence of manslaughter can vary immensely”); R. v. Clemons, 2003 MBCA 51 (Man. C.A.) at para. 7 (”The sentencing options available to a sentencing court for this offence are like no other”); R. v. Dasilva, [1988] B.C.J. No. 1744 (B.C. C.A.) at 2 (”It is clear enough that sentences for manslaughter vary from a suspended sentence to sentences of life imprisonment”); R. v. Henderson, 2005 BCCA 3, [2005] B.C.J. No. 4 (B.C. C.A.) [hereinafter R. v. E.H.] at para. 20 (”...the well-established spectrum of culpability in manslaughter cases ranging from ‘near accident’ to ‘near murder’”; R. v. Jones, [2005] EWCA Crim 3115 (Eng. C.A.) (”manslaughter cases vary greatly from one end of the scale to another”); P. (D.P.) v. Kelly, [2004] IECCA 14 (Ireland C.A.) at 14 (”The very wide range of facts which a manslaughter case may feature make it difficult to establish any very precise range of sentencing”); Attorney General’s Reference No. 33 of 96 (Latham), Re, [1996] EWCA Crim 1308 (Eng. C.A.) at 7 (manslaughter “covers a wide field”).

12 At para. 6 of the Clemons decision, the court observed that:

It has often been stated by sentencing courts and by appellate tribunals that the imposition of the correct sentence in a case of manslaughter is one of the most difficult tasks that a court faces. There is a reduced blameworthiness to be attributed to an offender because of a lack of intent or because of provocation, but the result of the offender’s actions still culminate in a death in circumstances that absent that lack of intent or because that provocation would otherwise result in murder.

13 An appropriate sentence for manslaughter “must reflect our society’s concern for the sanctity of life” and ordinarily “a lengthy sentence must be imposed having in mind the gravity” of the crime: R. v. Head, [1985] O.J. No. 153 (Ont. C.A.) at 2. As a general rule, severe sentences are imposed proportionate to the gravity of the offence of manslaughter: R. v. Turcotte (2000), 2000 CanLII 14721 (ON CA), 48 O.R. (3d) 97 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 19 (”...many, if not most, sentences for manslaughter, are in the penitentiary range”); P. (D.P.) v. Cooney, [2004] IECCA 19 (Ireland C.A.) at 10 (”Manslaughter is...an extremely serious offence, which in the majority of cases must result in a substantial custodial sentence”)

[63] The case law does not support the Crown’s request of 8-9 years in this case. One of the Crown’s cases is closer factually to the mark, as it is an example of a man lashing out while being beaten by the deceased: see R. v. Taylor [2013] O.J. No. 2616 (S.C). The sentence imposed there was six years. The defence has also presented cases in this general range: R. v. Corbett 2015 ONSC 6118, R. v. Heath [2015] O.J. No. 3415 (S.C.), R. v. Bengy 2012 ONSC 4463, (2012] O.J. No. 3694.

[64] Sending Mr. Croft to the penitentiary at this stage is neither necessary nor wise. In my opinion, a penitentiary sentence is not necessary to satisfy the public interest or to denounce this manslaughter offence. It will not depreciate this terrible crime to impose a lower sentence.

[65] Furthermore, a sentence of two years or less will have the extra benefit of allowing for probation supervision of Mr. Croft for his alcoholism, for his anger and to ease his eventual reintegration into the community. The availability of probation should not dictate a reformatory sentence but it can be a secondary benefit of one: see R. v. Stuckless 1998 CanLII 7143 (ON CA), [1998] O.J. No. 3177 (C.A.). It is here.

[66] Taking everything together, I believe a fit and appropriate sentence is one of six years incarceration. Subtracting the credit for the 4 years 9 months already served, that nets a sentence to be imposed here today of 15 months. That will be the sentence. There will be probation for three years on the statutory conditions, with the addition of two other conditions: 1. Take counselling for anger management as deemed appropriate by probation; 2. Take treatment for alcoholism as deemed appropriate by probation. I would like to add that if it is possible for Tara Brown who wrote the pre-sentence report to administer the probation order, that would be ideal. Her report was thorough, compassionate and well-balanced.

[67] As for ancillary matters, there will be a DNA databank order under Section 487.051 and a Section 109 weapons prohibition ban for life.

D.E HARRIS J.

Released: July 17, 2018