R. v. Reeves, 2015 BCSC 1293

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Reeves, 2015 BCSC 1293 Date: 20150703 Docket: 21073-4 Registry: Smithers Regina v. Robert Arthur Vernon Reeves Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bernard Oral Reasons for Sentence Counsel for Crown: P.M. Favell A.E. Norlund Counsel for Defence: J. Doyle Place and Dates of Trial: Prince George, B.C. June 12, 2015 June 17-19, 2015 June 22-26, 2015 June 29-July 3, 2015 Place and Date of Judgment: Prince George, B.C. July 3, 2015 A. Overview [ 1 ] THE COURT: On July 2, 2015, a jury found Robert Reeves guilty of second degree murder.

The charge arose from the stabbing death of Brian Baker on April 26, 2009, at his home in Granisle, BC. [ 2 ] This is Mr. Reeves' first conviction for murder. Pursuant to s. 745 (

c) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 [ Code ], he faces a mandatory life sentence without eligibility for parole until he has served at least ten years of his sentence or such greater number of years, not being more than 25 years, as has been substituted therefor, pursuant to s. 745.4 . [ 3 ]

Section 745.4 of the Code permits the court to substitute a greater period of parole ineligibility than ten years having regard to: (

a) the character of the offender, (

b) the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, and (

c) the recommendation, if any, made by the jury pursuant to s. 745.2 of the Code . [ 4 ] The sole matter for determination in this hearing is Mr. Reeves' parole ineligibility period, having regard to these factors. The position of the Crown and the defence is that a period greater than ten years should not be substituted for the ten-year minimum. B. The Factors (

a) The Character of the Offender [ 5 ] Mr. Reeves is a 42-year-old single man with no dependents. At the time of the murder, he was residing in Granisle with his mother, Vivian Baker, and her husband, Brian Baker. [ 6 ] Mr. Reeves has had a difficult life since birth. He was raised by a single mother who suffers from schizophrenia. In his teenage years, he became a ward of the state. Although I am informed that he has not been formally diagnosed with a mental disorder, it seems that he, too, likely suffers from a form of schizophrenia. [ 7 ] Mr. Reeves is an articulate, knowledgeable, and intelligent man; however, he harbours particular beliefs that have made it

difficult for him to form social relationships and maintain gainful employment. As a result, he has led a solitary life and endured a very meagre existence. In later years, before his incarceration, he relied upon his mother and Mr. Baker, who obviously had significant struggles of their own, for shelter and support. [ 8 ] Mr. Reeves has one prior criminal conviction. In December of 1993, he was convicted of uttering threats for which he received a conditional discharge with a one-year probationary term and a ten-year weapons prohibition. [ 9 ] Since the commission of the murder, Mr.

Reeves has demonstrated that he is amenable to treatment despite an understandable reluctance to take medications because of his first-hand experience witnessing how they affected his mother. (

b) The Nature of the Offence and the Circumstances of its Commission [ 10 ] Mr. Baker was stabbed to death by Mr. Reeves with a single-edged kitchen knife. The stabbing occurred in Mr. Baker's home office. The only other persons in the house at the time were Mrs. Baker and Mr. Reeves. Mrs. Baker did not witness the stabbing; however, she entered the office shortly after the event and found Mr. Baker lying in a pool of blood with several obvious stab wounds to his abdomen. [ 11 ] The autopsy of Mr. Baker revealed that he sustained 11 stab wounds to his abdomen and several superficial cuts to his body.

These latter injuries were consistent with being defensive wounds. The abdominal wounds were deep, and Mr. Baker quite quickly bled to death on the floor of his office. [ 12 ] Mrs. Baker testified that shortly before the stabbing, she and Mr. Reeves were in an altercation in the kitchen. She said Mr. Reeves was in an agitated state because he thought he was about to be “kicked out” of the house. She said he was also upset about her using a pot lid that he did not regard as clean enough. She said Mr. Reeves put his hands around her neck for an estimated 45 seconds before Mr.

Baker intervened in some manner and admonished Mr. Reeves to be kinder to his mother. She believes she then saw Mr. Reeves pick up a kitchen knife and leave the kitchen. It was shortly thereafter that she found Mr. Baker lying on the floor of his office, fatally wounded. [ 13 ] Mrs. Baker fled to a neighbour's house to call 9-1-1. She explained that when she had tried to make this call from home, Mr. Reeves cut the phone cord with a knife. [ 14 ] When the police received Mrs. Baker's report that her husband had been stabbed by her son at the family home, they secured the perimeter of the house and negotiated Mr.

Reeves' surrender. In the course of these negotiations, Mr. Reeves talked about the torturous pain he suffers from chips that were implanted in his body by the CIA or similar organization, and he explained that he stabbed Mr. Baker because the torture got to be too much for him. [ 15 ] After approximately 1.5 hours of negotiations, Mr. Reeves surrendered without incident. He was cooperative, polite, and friendly. During his transfer to the RCMP detachment in Houston, BC, he engaged in normal conversation with the transporting constable. [ 16 ] Mr.

Baker's closest living relatives at the time of his death were his sister Susan Oberman and his brother-in-law Steven Oberman. In their victim impact statements, they describe the shock and sadness of learning of Mr. Baker's death and the loss they felt. They described Mr. Baker as loving, generous, mild-mannered, non-violent, and kind. Apparently, he suffered from various undisclosed illnesses. He was also, reportedly, very supportive of his wife through her mental illness, and he tried to be similarly supportive of Mr. Reeves. (

c) The Jury's Recommendation [ 17 ] The jury was divided in its recommendation; five jurors chose to make no recommendation, one recommended ten years, four recommended 15 years, and two recommended 20 years. C. Discussion [ 18 ] In R. v.

Bennight , 2012 BCCA 461 , at para. 18 , Madam Justice MacKenzie, delivering the judgment of the Court, provided the following helpful synopsis of the applicable legal principles in relation to setting parole ineligibility: [18] The following principles apply to the decision to impose an extended period of parole ineligibility: • Under s. 745.4 of the Criminal Code , the sentencing judge must consider the character of the offender, the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, and the recommendation of the jury (if any). • The general sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence and the judge’s assessment of the offender’s future dangerousness are relevant factors [citations omitted]. • Parole ineligibility greater than 10 years is justified when there is some particularly aggravating feature [citations omitted]. • There are two broad groupings of cases where parole ineligibility is extended beyond 10 years: parole ineligibility periods from 12 to 15 years and parole ineligibility periods from 15 to 20 years.

The latter group of cases relates to cases at the highest order of moral culpability or dangerousness [citations omitted]. • The possibility of a parole ineligibility period greater than 20 years remains in exceptional circumstances [citations omitted].

• Orders extending the period of parole ineligibility are highly discretionary and are part of the sentence pursuant to s. 673 of the Criminal Code . Such orders are therefore appealed pursuant to s. 687(1). An appellant court should only interfere with a trial judge’s sentencing order if the court is convinced it is not fit or it is clearly unreasonable [citations omitted]. • The wide discretion granted to sentencing judges is fettered by the case law and general ranges of sentences for particular offences. However, while courts must consider ranges, they are guidelines rather than strict rules.

A sentence outside the regular range is not necessarily unfit, if it is in accordance with the principles and objectives of sentencing [citations omitted]. • Similarly, the two groups of parole ineligibility cases described in Cerra are intended as guidelines, not as binding categories within which a particular case must be placed [citations omitted]. [ 19 ] Having due regard for these principles and the shared position of the Crown and defence, I am satisfied that there is no reasonable basis for imposing a period of parole ineligibility greater than ten years.

I find that there is no “particularly aggravating feature” to Mr. Reeves’ crime, sad and unfortunate as it may be; indeed, I am of the view that Mr. Reeves' considerable struggles in his life as a result of having a mentally ill mother and likely also suffering from mental illness must be regarded as mitigating features. I am informed that Mr. Reeves demonstrated willingness to undergo treatment while incarcerated, and his recent successes in this regard tend to moderate any lingering concerns there may be in relation to the risk of harm he may pose to others in the future.

I am satisfied that the principles of denunciation and deterrence are met with a sentence of life imprisonment; a greater period of parole ineligibility is not demanded by them. Finally, in the absence of a unanimous or clear majority view from the jury as to period of parole ineligibility in excess of ten years, I would not regard the jury’s recommendation as a persuasive factor supporting the imposition of a period greater than ten years. In this regard, it must be noted that the jury was without the benefit of knowing much about Mr.

Reeves; he did not testify and a psychiatric report was not tendered until the commencement of the sentencing hearing. [ 20 ] It should also be noted that this is Mr. Reeves’ second trial on the charge of murdering Brian Baker - the first second degree murder verdict having been set aside on appeal. At Mr. Reeves’ first trial he testified and psychiatric evidence was tendered. In sentencing Mr. Reeves, the trial judge set his parole ineligibility period at ten years.

Although there were differences between the evidence at the first trial and the second, I am not persuaded that the differences were material for sentencing purposes; accordingly, the first judge's determination of parole ineligibility is persuasive. D. Sentence [ 21 ] Mr. Reeves, I have been informed by your counsel that you do not wish to say anything before I impose sentence. Does that remain your position? [ 22 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes, Your Honour. [ 23 ] THE COURT: Mr.

Reeves, on the single-count Indictment before the Court, you are sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility to apply for parole until you have served at least ten years of your sentence. Pursuant to s. 109 of the Code , you are prohibited from possessing the weapons and firearms described therein, for life. There will be a DNA databank order pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Code , and the victim fine surcharge is waived due to financial hardship. [ 24 ] Before we adjourn, allow me to express my gratitude to counsel for their very able assistance in this trial.

My thanks extend to Madam Clerk and to the court staff, as well. We will adjourn. “Bernard J.”