R. v. Krewson, 2017 BCSC 1488

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Krewson, 2017 BCSC 1488 Date: 20170719 Docket: 49281-2 Registry: Vernon Regina v. Howard Everett Krewson also known as Howard Everett Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Cole Oral Reasons for Sentence Counsel for the Crown: J.S. GuildCounsel for the Accused: D.M. TurkoPlace and Date of Hearing: Vernon, B.C.July 17, 2017Place and Date of Judgment: Vernon, B.C.July 19, 2017 INTRODUCTION [1] THE COURT: On December 23, 2016, Mr. Krewson was found guilty of second degree murder of Linda Marie Stewart,contrary to s. 235 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

The offence took place on June 19, 2014, near Lumby, British Columbia. [2] Before the jury was discharged, four members of the jury recommended that his parole eligibility be set at 15 years. Theremainder of the jury did not make any recommendation. The position of the Crown is that parole eligibility should be set at 15 years.The position of the defence is that it should be set at 10 years.

SUMMARY OF FACTS [3] Mr. Krewson and Ms. Stewart were in a relationship for approximately 21 months and lived on her ranch in a remote areaoutside of Lumby, British Columbia. A mutual friend had died on June 19 and the parties then started drinking beer, wine, smokedmarihuana, and later in the afternoon Ms. Stewart gave Mr. Krewson some pills to calm him down. [4] Ms. Laird, a friend of Ms. Stewart and Mr. Krewson, talked on the phone. Ms. Stewart had this conversation around 5:00 p.m.on June 19 and according to Ms. Laird it was obvious there were problems between Mr. Krewson and Ms. Stewart.

As a result of furtherconversation Ms. Laird had with Ms. Stewart, she testified that she could hear Mr. Krewson was angry, throwing things around, arguingwith Ms. Stewart, and this escalated to the point where Ms. Stewart and Ms. Laird discussed calling the police. Ms. Stewart said toMr. Krewson, overheard by Ms. Laird, quote, "Howard, if you don't calm down, Judy is going to call the police". His response is, "Goahead and call the police and then you will see what will happen". Ms. Stewart asked Mr. Krewson what he would do and thenMs. Stewart said to Ms.

Laird, "Oh, great, he is threatening to kill himself". [5] Ms. Stewart told Ms. Laird that she was going to leave and she went out to the garage and Mr. Krewson followed her. In thegarage Ms. Stewart was trying to get her dogs into her car. Mr. Krewson was heard asking Ms. Stewart, “Why?” Ms. Stewart asked himto help her get the dogs into the car. Ms. Stewart then got into the car. Mr. Krewson locked the garage door and went into the house.Ms. Stewart got out of the car and unlocked the garage door, got into her vehicle and started to back it out when she tells Ms. Laird thatMr. Krewson is behind her. Ms.

Laird said to her, "Just keep going". Ms. Stewart says, "Oh, God, he's got a gun". Ms. Laird said, "Keepgoing, keep going". Ms. Stewart said, "He is going to shoot me". And then Ms. Laird hears what she thinks is the window of the carimploding and a dog yelping. At least one shot was fired through the window that struck Ms. Stewart and she was killed. [6] The gun used was a Ruger .45 magnum handgun which Mr. Krewson and Ms. Stewart had used in target practice and werefamiliar with. Mr.

Krewson then went into the home, shot himself in the face, the police arrive shortly thereafter and he told the policewhere her body was and what happened. THE LAW [7] With respect to parole eligibility, Mr. Justice Iacobucci in R. v. Shropshire, (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227,para. 18, states:

The determination under [what is now 745.5 of the Criminal Code] is thus a very fact-sensitive process.

The factors to be considered infixing an extended period of parole ineligibility are: (1) the character of the offender; (2) the nature of the offence; and (3) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence; all bearing in mind the discretionary power conferred on the trial judge. [8] With respect to overall standard that should be governed an in -- govern an inquiry into s. 745.4 Justice Iacobucci said atpara. 27: . . . a more appropriate standard, which would better reflect the intentions of Parliament, can be stated in this manner: as a general rule,the period of parole ineligibility shall be for 10 years, but this can be ousted by a determination of the trial judge that, according to thecriteria enumerated [in what is now 745.4], the offender should wait a longer period before having his suitability to be released into thegeneral public assessed.

To this end, an extension of the period of parole ineligibility would not be "unusual", although it may well bethat, in the median number of cases, a period of 10 years might still be awarded. [9] In R. v. Cerra, 2004 BCCA 594 , 2004 BCCA at 594 Mr. Justice Donald stated at para. 17: It has often been said that sentencing is an individualized process and comparisons with other cases are difficult. But difficult as theymay be, comparisons must be made when reviewing sentences for fitness. Patterns may emerge from an examination of sentencingdecisions.

I have discerned a pattern from decisions of this Court suggesting, in broad terms, the following: parole eligibility greater than10 years is justified when there is some particularly aggravating feature; for a penalty of greater than 15 years, egregious circumstancesof a higher order of moral culpability are present. [10] At para. 20 he states: However, discretion must be exercised on a principled basis.

As the potential range of ineligibility is realistically between 10 and 20years (only a few cases have exceeded 20 years) and as each year must be fully served, subject to the 15 year review process, somepoints of reference must be identified in order to avoid arbitrariness resulting from a sentencing judge's subjective reaction of thecircumstances of the offence.

In my view, the primary point of reference is the pattern of penalties in similar cases. [11] The principles of sentencing are set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code and they require the court to denounce unlawful conductand the harm done to victims or the community that is caused by unlawful conduct, to deter the offender and other persons fromcommitting offences, to separate offenders from society where necessary, to assist in rehabilitating offenders, to provide reparation forharm done to victims or to the community, and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done tovictims or to their community. [12]

Section 718.1 requires that: A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility [for] the offender. [13]

Section 718.2 requires the court imposing a sentence to take in account the following principles: a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence orthe offender . . . a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances . . . [14] The position of the defence is that parole eligibility should be between 10 and 12 years. The Crown says 15 years isappropriate. Both sides provided ample cases to substantiate their positions.

I have reviewed and considered all the cases that have beensubmitted. These cases are all fact specific and are of assistance to the court as guidelines. [15] Mr. Krewson is 57 years of age, born and raised in the United States, where his parents were both alcoholics, the father wasabusive physically to his children and his wife, and Mr. Krewson also suffered because of sexual abuse by his father and paternal unclefrom age 4 to 12.

He left school at age 15, but did not disclose to the probation officer details of his whereabouts after leaving his home.He was married for the first time in 1980, had a child in 1981, the parties separated, he has not seen the child since age 4 or 5. He thenmarried in 1985, had a child in 1986, separated in 1989 and has not seen that child since 1991. He has told his mother that he did not wantanyone to know his phone number or address because of outstanding child support. In 1995 he married, had a child, and has not seen thatchild since 2001. He entered Canada in 2002.

He did not have a visa or any documents, but entered as a U.S. citizen. He did not provideany details of his whereabouts or his activities until 2008 when he arrived in the Lumby area, and started to work shoeing horses, being acowboy and a labourer. [16] Mr. Krewson was seen by Dr.

Riar, a forensic psychiatrist, and since he did not disclose what was going on in his mind at thetime of the offence the doctor stated, "… in the absence of any previous history of aggressive or violent tendencies it is probable that heacted on an impulse without thinking through the consequences of his actions as a result of emotional arousal in the presence of theeffect of various psychoactive substances he consumed before the [incident]." [17] Dr. Beauchemin, a psychiatrist, opined: Unfortunately, given the categoric refusal of Mr.

Krewson to discuss the index offence, it is not possible for me in these circumstances toconclusively determine the cause of his behaviour and the resulting outcome of the index offence as well his high level of risk of

reoffending. The only aspects I could comment about is the current absence of a major psychopathology and the possibility that his risk to reoffend may increase with substance use, given that Mr. Krewson, by his own report, noted he was using substances at the time of the offence. THE NATURE OF THE OFFENCE AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENCE [ 18 ] This was a brutal murder fuelled in part by drugs and alcohol. The firing of a high powered pistol at short range when Ms.

Stewart was in the confined space of her car and when she was trying to escape must have caused her a great deal of terror and fear. MITIGATING FACTORS [ 19 ] Mr. Krewson does not have a criminal record in respect to mitigating factors. He has shown genuine remorse. He has attended many counselling programs and other courses, including being involved in a chapel Christian organization while incarcerated. AGGRAVATING FACTORS [ 20 ] He does not take full responsibility for his actions. Ms. Stewart knew or most likely knew that he intended to kill her and she suffered fear for a short period of time.

The use of firearms, especially a high powered handgun, is an aggravating factor. This is a position of trust. An assault on a spouse is always an aggravating factor. The shooting occurred inside the confined space of a car while she was attempting to flee. This murder has had a severe impact on her brother, sister-in-law, nieces, and friends. He has fathered four children for which he has not accepted financial or emotional responsibility.

In my view, he is a selfish, narcissistic individual that does not accept responsibility for his conduct. [ 21 ] It is fair to say that no sentence will undo the wrong and the loss of this individual human life.

What I must do is balance the legislative principles as I have outlined them in an attempt to conclude a sentence that will protect the public in our community, deter those who may be similarly inclined, and reasonably reflect on behalf of the community its shock and abhorrence to this killing proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender in that offence and have similarities to sentencing imposed on similar offenders on similar offences in similar circumstances. [ 22 ] Mr.

Krewson, would you please stand up. [ 23 ] I sentence you to life imprisonment without parole for a period of 13 years. [ 24 ] Pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code of Canada , you are subject to a lifetime firearm ban. [ 25 ] Since this is a primary designated offence, you are required to provide DNA for registration at the National Databank. A sample must be provided within 30 days of today's date. [ 26 ] All exhibits in this case will be forfeited to the Crown. [ 27 ] Counsel, is there anything else? [ 28 ] MS. TURKO: Nothing, My Lord. [ 29 ] MR. GUILD: No, My Lord. [ 30 ] THE COURT: Thank you.

The Honourable Mr. Justice F.W. Cole