COURT FILE NO.: 16-RM2310
DATE: 2019/09/20
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
TODD TURNER
John Semenoff, for the Crown
Robert Carew, for the Accused
HEARD: August 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, 2019
sENTENCING REASONS AND RULING ON LONG-TERM OFFENDER APPLICATION
MARANGER J.
Overview:
On November 14, 2015 at about 8:30 pm Mr. Junior Jean was shot to death just outside his home located on Lacasse Avenue in the Vanier area of the city of Ottawa.
On December 14, 2018 a jury convicted Todd Turner of the offence of manslaughter in the death of Mr. Jean.
Originally, Mr. Turner together with Johnnie-Dean Locey Derochie, Candy Locey, and Dominique Chrétien all faced charges of first-degree murder.
Pre-trial motions were heard by this Court in January and May of 2018 involving all four accused persons, their trial was set to commence for 10 weeks commencing in November 2018. In the months following the pre-trial motions plea agreements were reached in the cases of Mr. Locey -Derochie Ms. Locey and Mr. Chrétien.
Mr. Locey -Derochie pled guilty to second-degree murder with a parole ineligibility period of 15 years, Ms. Locey pled guilty to second-degree murder with a parole ineligibility period of 10 years, and Mr. Chrétien pled guilty to manslaughter and in a contested sentencing hearing was sentenced to five years imprisonment.
The only accused who brought the matter to trial was Mr. Turner. This even though he was offered a manslaughter plea. He refused. He insisted on his innocence and on having his day in court.
The Crown is now seeking a period of incarceration of six years or eight years. The eight-year sentence depends upon a finding of fact by the court that Mr. Turner knew about the existence of the gun/rifle prior to its use in the death of Mr. Jean. Absent that finding the request is 6 years imprisonment.
The Crown is also requesting that Mr. Turner be designated a long-term offender and that he be subject to a long-term supervision order for a period of 10 years following the completion of his determinate sentence; pursuant to section 753.1 of the code.
Counsel representing Mr. Turner submitted that the court sentence him to time served which when factoring a ratio of 1 to 1.5 is more than 52 months and to dismiss the L.T.O. application.
Factual background and relevant findings of fact:
[1] Section 724 (2) and (3) of the Criminal Code states:
(2) Where the court is composed of a judge and jury, the court
(a) shall accept as proven all facts, express or implied, that are essential to the jury’s verdict of guilty; and
(b) may find any other relevant fact that was disclosed by evidence at the trial to be proven, or hear evidence presented by either party with respect to that fact.
(3) Where there is a dispute with respect to any fact that is relevant to the determination of a sentence,
(a) the court shall request that evidence be adduced as to the existence of the fact unless the court is satisfied that sufficient evidence was adduced at the trial;
(b) the party wishing to rely on a relevant fact, including a fact contained in a presentence report, has the burden of proving it;
(c) either party may cross-examine any witness called by the other party;
(d) subject to paragraph (e), the court must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities of the existence of the disputed fact before relying on it in determining the sentence; and
(e) the prosecutor must establish, by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of any aggravating fact or any previous conviction by the offender
[2] The evidence at trial included 17 witnesses, video surveillance evidence taken from exterior security cameras in the Lacasse street area, phone records and several admissions.
[3] Mr. Turner testified on his own behalf.
[4] The evidence allowed for the following uncontroversial findings of fact:
On November 14, 2015 Byron Thistle, Ms. Locey, Kelly Kitchen and Junior Jean spent time together drinking and socializing at the apartment of Mr. Jean located at 340 Lacasse Avenue in Vanier.
At some point in the afternoon Ms. Locey and Mr. Jean got into an altercation/argument which included physical contact between the two.
Mr. Turner was Ms. Locey’s crack supplier, he was residing with Isabelle Richards at 349 Lacasse across the street from Mr. Jean’s residence. Ms. Locey frequently used crack cocaine purchased from Mr. Turner at Ms. Richard’s apartment.
Ms. Locey told her son Mr. Locey- Derochie that Mr. Jean had violated her, insulted her and/or harmed her. This was said over the phone in the residence of Ms. Richards and Mr. Turner was present and could have heard at least what Ms. Locey said.
At one point on November 14, 2015 Mr Turner and Ms. Locey spoke and she would have told Turner words to the effect that Mr. Jean had assaulted her.
On that date Mr. Turner and Ms. Locey are seen entering 349 Lacasse Avenue at 7:52 pm.
Mr. Locey-Derochie and Dominique Chrétien take a taxi to Chrétien’s parents’ residence where he retrieves a sawed off 22 rifle it is contained in a duffle bag.
Mr. Locey-Derochie and Mr. Chrétien arrive at and then enter 349 Lacasse at 8:28 pm.
90 seconds later Mr. Locey-Derochie, Mr. Chrétien, Ms. Locey, and Mr. Turner exit 349 Lacasse.
The rifle is not visible in the video surveillance at this point.
Mr. Locey-Derochie and Mr. Turner then cross Lacasse avenue to the west, and Mr. Chrétien and Ms. Locey walk north on Lacasse on the west side of the street.
Mr. Locey Derochie shoots Mr. Jean in the chest at 8:30 pm.
At 8:32pm Mr. Locey-Derochie, Ms. Locey and Mr. Turner ran eastward and back 349 Lacasse.
Surveillance video shows Mr. Locey-Derochie carrying a rifle as he runs to 349 Lacasse. Mr. Turner is running in front of him.
[5] For the purposes of this hearing, the court was tasked with deciding two questions regarding Mr. Turner and the day Mr. Jean was shot to death.
Was I satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Turner knew about the gun/rifle prior to its being used? It is an aggravating factor which results in a mandatory minimum penalty of 4 years.
On the evidence as a whole what was the likely path to the manslaughter conviction?
[6] With respect to the first question I cannot say with the requisite certainty that Mr. Turner knew about the rifle until the moment it was used. My uncertainty arises from the following evidence or lack of evidence on this issue:
The video evidence before Mr. Locey-Derochie and Mr. Chrétien enter 349 Lacasse does not show any weapon. It was in a duffle bag.
The amount of time that Mr. Locey-Derochie and Mr. Chrétien were at 349 Lacasse with the weapon was 90 seconds.
When the 4 parties exited the residence, the weapon was concealed by Locey-Derochie and was not visible in the surveillance video.
The size of the weapon was a shortened/sawed off 22 rifle 2 to 3 feet perhaps. It could have been concealed until the last minute under the coat worn by Mr. Locey-Derochie on the night in question.
The physical layout of Isabelle Richards’ apartment as disclosed in the photographic evidence and in the diagrams, and the possible location of the parties therein, make it plausible that the retrieval of the weapon and concealment thereof was not seen by Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner testified at the trial and denied ever seeing the weapon until the last minute, while I did not accept all of Mr. Turner’s testimony about what he knew or didn’t know that night, his evidence on this specific issue left me with some doubt.
The possible after-the-fact utterances by Mr. Turner to Ms. Richards as to his surprise, shock, about what had just taken place. Including a prior statement by her on December 18, 2015 as to what he may have said about the gun re-enforced this doubt.
[7] With respect to the second issue, the jury found that Mr. Turner’s involvement in the shooting of Mr. Jean was as an aider and abettor to a manslaughter. It was a verdict available on the evidence.
[8] I conclude that Mr. Turner was aware that Mr. Locey-Derochie, Mr. Chrétien, and Ms. Locey were going to confront Mr. Jean on the evening in question, and that Mr. Locey-Derochie meant to cause him bodily harm that was neither trivial nor transitory, short of killing him. Mr. Jean was shot to death by Mr. Locey-Derochie. I find that this was the likely path to manslaughter in this case.
[9] I arrive at that conclusion based upon the following analysis of the evidence or lack of evidence in this case:
Mr. Turner’s explanation that he was going to the area in question to conduct a drug transaction was rejected by the jury, I also reject that part of his testimony.
He knew about the incident between Ms. Locey and Mr. Jean.
He was present when Ms. Locey called her son.
He is seen leaving 349 Lacasse with the 3 other parties.
He is seen with Locey- Derochie while Ms. Locey and Mr. Chrétien go in another direction moments before Mr. Jean is shot.
What Turner’s precise involvement was at the time of the shooting is difficult to say. Byron Thistle was the only eyewitness apart from Mr. Turner himself. Mr. Thistle testimony about what he saw was in my view of no value. His level of intoxication and clearly erroneous description of the number of people at the scene rendered his account very unreliable.
Mr. Turner did not know Mr. Jean.
The video evidence of Mr. Turner’s running with Locey-Derochie immediately after the shooting.
Mr. Turner’s utterances after-the-fact actions and utterances are indicative of what his likely level of knowledge was in and around the time of this offence.
[10] The cumulative effect of all the direct and circumstantial evidence allows for the following inference: Mr. Turner knew that Mr. Locey- Derochie meant to harm Mr. Jean and that serious harm was a foreseeable risk, Mr. Turner attended with him to aid or abet in that unlawful act; at a minimum it was to encourage or provide assistance in the performance of the unlawful act if required.
Appropriate Penalty for Manslaughter Conviction:
[11] The offence of manslaughter has a wide range of sentencing possibilities. They can vary from a suspended sentence to sentences of life imprisonment. The spectrum of culpability in manslaughter cases can range from “near accident” to near murder”. As Justice Dambrot noted in R v. Ayub Ali [2018] OJ No.4958 at para 31:
31 It has been said that no sentencing discretion is wider than that for manslaughter. This is unsurprising, because manslaughter is a crime that varies greatly in its seriousness, sometimes coming very close to inadvertence, and sometimes coming very close to murder. The wide sentencing range reflects the variety of circumstances that can result in a manslaughter conviction. The exercise in each case is to impose a sentence that fits the facts and the circumstances of the particular case and the particular offender. R v. Devaney (2006) 2006 33666 (ON CA), 213 CCC (3d) 264 (Ont. CA).
[12] A fit sentence for Mr. Turner must be proportionate to the gravity of his offence and to his moral blameworthiness. It has to be assessed in the context of the purposes and principles of sentencing set out in section 718 of the Criminal Code:
- The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community.
[13] On October 22, 2018 Justice Lynn Ratushny took pleas to 2nd degree murder in the cases of Mr. Locey-Derochie and Ms. Locey sentencing them each to the mandatory life imprisonment, with parole ineligibility periods of 15 years for Mr. Locey-Derochie and 10 years for Ms. Locey.
[14] On February 7, 2019 Justice Kevin Phillips sentenced Dominique Chrétien to 5 years imprisonment for his role in this crime. He credited Mr. Chretien with some time for the strict bail conditions he was on up to the time of sentencing. In his reasons he indicated: “I intend to give credit to Mr. Chrétien for his time on interim release and I included it under mitigation to make clear that I understand that his experience on release ought to drive the sentence downward”.
[15] The Crown in the case of Mr. Chrétien argued that his involvement constituted an aggravated manslaughter and that 6 to 8 years was appropriate. In the case of Mr. Chrétien his participation included fore-knowledge of a gun and a mandatory minimum period of incarceration of four years.
[16] There is no mandatory minimum in Mr. Turner’s case.
[17] Of the four people found criminally liable in the death of Mr Jean and their relative degree of moral blameworthiness and responsibility, I rank Mr. Turner to be the lowest.
[18] I would put the appropriate range of penalty at 3 to 5 years imprisonment for his involvement. He aided and abetted in a vigilante payback situation where he knew bodily harm could likely befall Mr. Jean. A penitentiary term of imprisonment that is denunciatory is required.
[19] Mr. Turner is 41 years old and has lengthy criminal record, however he has never served a term of imprisonment beyond 116 days.
[20] He was a crack dealer just before his arrest, heavily addicted to illegal substances. By reason of lengthy pre-sentence custody and taking prescribed medication to combat his addictions he has been clean for some time now.
[21] When all is considered a fit and just sentence in his case would be 4 years.
[22] He has been in custody for over 1,060 days. Counsel have agreed that on a credit of 1.5 to 1 he has served a little more than 52 months. Mr. Turner has already served more than the appropriate sentence.
Long Term Offender Application:
[23] Section 753.1 of the Criminal Code sets out the statutory criteria for finding someone to be a long-term offender. It indicates:
753.1 (1) The court may, on application made under this Part following the filing of an assessment report under subsection 752.1(2), find an offender to be a long-term offender if it is satisfied that
(a) it would be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more for the offence for which the offender has been convicted;
(b) there is a substantial risk that the offender will reoffend; and
(c) there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community.
[24] Section 753. 1 (2) b (i) defines substantial risk when a court is faced with an offender whose criminal behavior does not include sexual conduct.
Substantial risk
(2) The court shall be satisfied that there is a substantial risk that the offender will reoffend if
(b) the offender
(i) has shown a pattern of repetitive behaviour, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, that shows a likelihood of the offender’s causing death or injury to other persons or inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons,
[25] The substantial risk to re-offend requires a substantial risk of violent re-offending. R v. Smiley [2019] OJ No 757 at para 48.
[26] The requirement of presenting a substantial risk to reoffend is a high threshold involving a substantial risk of causing serious harm to individuals. R v. Ryan [2017] OJ No. 2091 para 10.
[27] In that the appropriate penalty for the predicate offence exceeded 2 years, the only question here is: Has the Crown established that Mr. Turner presents as a substantial risk to violently reoffend upon his release.
Evidence presented at LTO application/sentencing hearing:
[28] On the issue of Mr. Turners level of risk, the following evidence was filed at the hearing: a summary of his criminal record including transcripts from some of the court attendances, records from the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre (OCDC), occurrence reports, victim impact statements, and a court ordered psychiatric assessment. The court also heard testimony from the following witnesses: Ernest Yard, Dr. Z. Waisman, Dr. Daniel Crépault, Scott Munro and Dr. Y. Benzimra.
[29] Ernest Yard: testified as a character witness and indicated that Turner could live with him once released at least for the short term. He is recovering addict who met Mr. Turner during a residential rehabilitation program.
[30] Dr. Waisman: testified and his report was filed; the highlights of his report and evidence can be summarized as follows:
I. He conducted mental status examination interviews on April 7, April 21, and June 2, 2019 at the OCDC.
II. He considered materials provided by the Crown’s office including but not limited to Mr. Turners criminal record, transcripts and exhibits, reports from the ROH and the Ottawa Hospital as well as the Detention Centre records.
III. The report summarizes Mr. Turner’s criminal history, mental health history, addiction issues, medical history, family history, personal history and various other court attendances. He is 41 years old and has had long term substance abuse problems, chronic problems with the law and toxic relationships with women which include violence.
IV. Mental status examinations: according to the DSM-5 he has an anti-social personality disorder, likely compounded by substance abuse issues.
V. He also testified that Mr. Turner had borderline personality traits.
VI. Different tests were administered including the PCL-R (Psychopathy Check List Revised) Mr. Turner’s score was 23 out of 40 placing him at the 52nd percentile of male prison inmates. The Violence Risk Appraisal Guide he scored 16 which placed him at the 87th percentile of male offenders with a percentage to re-offend of 64% in the next ten years.
VII. Based on his interviews, review and analysis of Turner’s criminal history including the predicate offence, and the tests administered that he from a psychiatric perspective viewed Mr. Turner as being at a moderate to high risk/above average risk for violent recidivism.
[31] Dr. Waisman came across as matter of fact, intelligent and professional. He for all intents and purposes recommended a Long-term Offender (LTO) designation and a Long-Term Supervision Order (LTSO).
[32] I have considered the report and recommendations.
[33] Daniel Crépault: is a PHD in criminology and is the assistant director of Harvest House. He has worked at Harvest House for 14 years.
[34] Harvest house is a long-term rehabilitation centre with a Christian faith-based foundation.
[35] Mr. Turner was in the program from May 26, 2010 to August 9, 2010 he discharged himself from the program. He did not succeed in completing the program and was “resistant to be compliant and to follow the rules and expectations of the program”.
[36] The witness believed that at that time he wasn’t very serious about the program.
[37] He also testified that in terms of bad behavior Turner’s was slightly above average compared to others in the program.
[38] In cross-examination he acknowledged that the types on incidents that Mr. Turner was involved in such as arguments with staff are a common occurrence.
[39] He indicated a 1 year stay in treatment is considered a success, that only 24% of people achieve that result.
[40] Scott Munro: testified that he is the operations manager at the OCDC. He started there in 1983.
[41] He explained that Mr. Turner has been incarcerated at the OCDC from the end of December 2015 to today with some gaps.
[42] He is quite familiar with Mr. Turner and speaks with him at least 2 times a month.
[43] Through the witness a series of misconduct reports involving Mr. Turner were filed. He described some of the incidents. Outburst and threats were the common theme.
[44] None of the misconduct described involved situations where anyone was ever injured. The witness described Mr. Turner as someone who was prone to verbal outbursts then was quick to apologise.
[45] There was an incident where pills were found in his cell but at the time, he had a cell partner and they could have been his.
[46] The most serious incident was said to have taken place on January 3, 2019 it resulted in criminal charges of uttering death threats to a corrections officer. Mr. Turner was found not guilty of the charges following a trial.
[47] He testified to his having a lot of good days with the odd bad day. To being in segregation since March 2018. To wanting to keep to himself and reading a lot of books. To not affiliating with any gangs.
[48] He described the level of anxiety and stress Turner was under because of the murder charges.
[49] Finally, he indicated that while drugs make their way into the jail there was no evidence that Mr. Turner has ever used that he seems to have kept clean.
[50] Dr. Benzimra: is a PhD in Psychology and has practised clinical psychology since 2003. As part of his practise he provides therapy and consultation to inmates at the OCDC and has done so on and off since 2013.
[51] He has treated and spent time with Mr. Turner. From May 24, 2019 to August 13, 2019 he saw him 6 times for between 30 minutes to an hour as a treating psychologist. Dr. Benzimra came across as matter of fact, intelligent and professional.
[52] He did not perceive Mr. Turner in the same light as Dr. Waisman. In fact, it seemed to be the opposite.
[53] While he agreed that Turner had anti-social personality disorder, he felt he was at the lower level juxtaposed to other inmates.
[54] He explained that the higher-level cases were usually selfish, violent and manipulative. He did not see Mr. Turner as that way at all. That he was not evil or cold blooded. Compared to other inmates he was at the lower end of the spectrum.
[55] He described Mr. Turner as being interested in becoming a better person as having a form of OCD respecting cleanliness. That he purposely wanted to be on his own to stay safe and out of trouble this is why he has and has been in segregation for such a long time.
[56] He also described him as loud and lively which can come across as aggressive and violent. He explained that his level of stress would be very high, that he is anxious fearful and depressed. That he has PTSD. He has provided several self-help books to help Mr. Turner who reads a lot.
[57] Mr. Turner has been on toboxin for some time to control his opiate/drug addictions. He has been clean for over 2 years. That substance abuse is the bigger issue.
[58] Overall, he does not see him as violent or predatory.
[59] In cross-examination it was brought out that he did not perform any form of risk assessment on Mr. Turner; he treated him.
[60] He had some knowledge about his criminal history and attempts at treatment for drug abuse, but his knowledge was limited.
[61] He was not aware of a 2014 overdose.
[62] He only saw parts of Dr. Waisman’s report because Mr. Turner would ask what some of it meant as he was anxious about the report.
[63] He maintained that he believed that Turner dos not have a disregard for the lives and safety of others that his main problem was addiction.
[64] In terms of being released into society he acknowledged some form of transitioning could be beneficial for counselling and avoiding the criminal lifestyle.
[65] He could not comment on job prospects but said that Turner is physically healthy and has high energy. As to his release and what follows he candidly indicated that that was not his mandate.
[66] He was asked about Dialectic Behavioral Therapy and if it was benefitting Mr. Turner, he could not comment as it was not his area of expertise.
[67] He agreed abstaining from drugs was essential as to alcohol he was less adamant.
[68] He maintained that Turner was not a violent person he was cross examined on the prior assaults on Turner’s record he indicated drugs were the bigger problem.
The Criminal Record
[69] Mr. Turner is 41 years old he has a lengthy Criminal record with some 23 different convictions; he has the following specific entries for violent offences and the dispositions for each:
2003-02-4 Perth: Uttering threats -30 days jail;
2005- 8-29 Perth: Assault -suspended sentence one-year probation five days presentence custody;
2006-06-26 Perth: Assault OBH -30 days and 40 days presentence custody probation two years;
2009-10-15 Ottawa: Assault suspended sentence nine months’ probation;
2011-04-11 Ottawa: Assault and assault with a weapon uttering threats failure to comply 116 days jail total and two years’ probation;
2013-08-23 Gatineau, Québec: Uttering threats 28 days jail and probation;
2015-05-01 Ottawa: Assault: 27 days intermittent three days presentence custody credited.
[70] The total amount of time Mr. Turner has been incarcerated for all of his crimes of violence is a little over nine months. The most serious of his past offences is the assault with a weapon that took place in 2011 for which he was sentenced to 116 days; the facts concerning that assault are that a female companion of Mr. Turner’s Ms. Lisa Kelly was angry with him because he had been drinking after just being released from an alcohol and drug program. At some point Ms. Kelly hit an intoxicated Mr. Turner who responded by grabbing her by the throat and squeezing, threatening her with a hammer and punching her in the face.
[71] The last crime of violence on his record was in 2015 for which Mr. Turner was sentenced to 27 days incarceration. The sentencing judge, Justice Alder described the assault in the following manner: “in this case what was aggravating is the assault itself. It’s a domestic situation, so there’s that relationship, there’s that trust that is breached here. But that being said, it is not the most minor, it is certainly not the most severe. It’s a simple assault. There are no injuries. I’m also considering as aggravating the criminal record you were on probation at the time so that’s aggravating”.
[72] While he has a lengthy criminal record, including convictions for six different assaults as well as 3 convictions for uttering threats. The sentencing dispositions received are a reflection of the relative gravity of the crimes; in almost each instance they involved some level of intoxication by Mr. Turner. In the majority of the convictions there were no injuries.
[73] To borrow a phrase from Justice Alder: Mr. Turner’s criminal record for violence is not the most minor of criminal records but certainly not the most severe.
Analysis and conclusion:
[74] After considering the evidence as a whole in this case, I come to the conclusion that the application to have Mr. Turner designated a Long-Term Offender falls just short of establishing that he is a substantial risk to violently reoffend or as stated in R. v. Ryan a substantial risk of causing serious harm to individuals.
[75] I appreciate that this decision runs contrary to the recommendations of Dr. Waisman in his report and evidence.
[76] I have considered his report and his evidence. While I respect the opinion there are aspects of the report that I found somewhat troubling. More importantly when the opinion is juxtaposed to some of the other evidence heard, the weight I would accord the opinion is diminished to the degree that the application falls just short of establishing Mr. Turner as a substantial risk to violently reoffend: this includes the following evidence and analysis:
Dr. Waisman’s reliance and understanding of the severity and nature of the predicate offence, Mr. Turner’s criminal record and his incidents of misconduct at the OCDC. It seems to me that he understood these to be more severe than was justified. For example, in his report at p.4 he described an incident at the OCDC by quoting an Ottawa police service report of an altercation Mr. Turner had with some correction officers. The report doesn’t stipulate that Mr. Turner was acquitted of all charges in relation to that incident. And, at p.15 the report cites my ruling of December 6, 2018 on a directed verdict application as a means of describing the predicate offence.
The VRAG score of 16 and its impact on his findings; the test results disclosed that 8 points of the score of 16 hinged on Mr. Turner not having parents up to 16 years of age and misbehaving in elementary school. While it is a tool legitimately used by Psychiatrists, I find the scoring somewhat arbitrary.
Mr. Scott Munroe a 35-year veteran of the OCDC gave an overall description of Mr. Turner as an inmate at the OCDC that was favorable. He did not describe a hyper violent difficult inmate but in his words “he has a lot of good days and some bad days” He has not caused physical injury to anyone while incarcerated. “He has outbursts then quickly apologises”.
Dr. Benzarim an experienced psychologist treating inmates at the OCDC. Testified that he did not perceive Mr. Turner at this point in his life as a violent person or someone who was a risk to hurt people. He described him as a lively and loud individual and that this characteristic can be misconstrued as aggressive or violent. He has kept to himself while in the OCDC and reads a lot of self-help books. He has regret for the life he has lived. He has empathy for others.
[77] Therefore, the LTO application is dismissed.
[78] As to the appropriate final disposition Mr. Turner requires motivation to stay clean and out of trouble; it is fair to say he is a risk to re-offend generally, I am thus going to fashion the sentence so that he is placed on probation for 3 years.
[79] Thus, given that Mr. Turner has served the equivalent of 52 months imprisonment; the record will reflect that he received 4 years for the manslaughter conviction time served.
[80] By reason of the pre-sentence custody, I hereby sentence him to 1-day credit time served and suspend the passing of sentence and place him on probation for a period of 36 months: In addition to the usual statutory conditions, the probation order shall contain the following terms:
I. That Mr. Turner shall report to a probation officer within 24 hours of his release from custody and be amenable to the direction of his probation officer;
II. That Mr. Turner engage in any counselling or treatment programs as may be recommended by his probation officer for drug and alcohol addiction, including any recommendations that Mr. Turner continue taking prescription medication to control his addiction as may be recommended by a physician.
III. That Mr. Turner is to abstain from communicating directly or indirectly with Byron Thistle or Isabelle Richards (except as directed by a Family Court Order or Family Court Proceeding concerning Isabelle Richards only) or Kelly Kitchen.
IV. That Mr. Turner shall abstain from the consumption of non-prescription drugs and alcohol.
[81] There will be a lifetime weapons prohibition pursuant to section 109 and order for the providing of DNA in accordance with the Criminal Code.
The Honourable Mr. Justice Robert L. Maranger
Released: September 20, 2019
COURT FILE NO.: 16-RM2310
DATE: 2019/09/20
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
TODD TURNER
Sentencing REASONS and ruling on long-term application
Maranger J.
Released: September 20, 2019