R v Goforth, 2022 SKCA 107

Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan Docket: CACR2757 Citation: R v Goforth , 2022 SKCA 107 Date: 2022-10-05 Between: Kevin Eric Goforth Appellant And His Majesty the King Respondent Before: Caldwell, Leurer and Barrington-Foote JJ.A.

Disposition: Sentence appeal dismissed Written reasons by: The Court On appeal from: 2016 SKQB 75 , Regina; sentence appeal remitted under R v Goforth , 2022 SCC 25 Appeal heard: January 15, 2019, and July 21, 2020, written submissions by the Respondent on August 12, 2022, and by the Appellant on September 9, 2022 Counsel: Kevin Hill, Aleida Oberholzer and Zachary Carter for the Appellant Beverly L. Klatt and Pouria Tabrizi-Reardigan for the Respondent The Court [ 1 ] In February of 2021, this Court rendered its judgment in R v Goforth , 2021 SKCA 20 , 400 CCC (3d) 1 [ Goforth SKCA ] .

The majority of the Court (Leurer and Barrington-Foote, JJ.A.) allowed the conviction appeal by Kevin Eric Goforth and, therefore, found it unnecessary to address his sentence appeal. Justice Caldwell, who wrote a dissenting opinion in the conviction appeal, would have dismissed the sentence appeal on all grounds. In R v Goforth , 2022 SCC 25 , 470 DLR (4th) 617 [ Goforth SCC ] , a majority of the Supreme Court restored Mr. Goforth’s convictions and remitted his sentence appeal to this Court (at para 60). [ 2 ] The facts of Mr. Goforth’s offences are grim.

His two foster children were two and three years old when they came to live with him and his wife. Less than nine months later, the older child had starved to death and the younger child had been similarly neglected and starved but she survived. A jury convicted Mr. Goforth of manslaughter in the death of the older child and of unlawfully causing bodily harm to the younger child. The trial judge sentenced Mr. Goforth to 15 years of imprisonment for these offences (see R v Goforth , 2016 SKQB 75 ). [ 3 ] In his original factum, Mr.

Goforth asserted, in several ways, that the trial judge erred in principle when crafting a 15-year sentence for manslaughter because she had failed to consider the degree to which he was criminally responsible for the older child’s death and because she had failed to consider his diminutive position in his household as a mitigating factor. He also argued that his sentence was disproportionate to the sentences imposed on other offenders in similar circumstances. [ 4 ] In light of the remittal under Goforth SCC , this Court invited and received further written submissions from the Crown and Mr. Goforth.

The Crown maintains that, by reason of Goforth SCC , Mr. Goforth’s personal circumstances do not lessen his moral culpability for the offences he committed. Mr. Goforth takes the position that Goforth SCC has no bearing on his sentence appeal or his moral culpability. He relies on the original factum he filed in this matter. [ 5 ] We are not persuaded that the trial judge erred in law or in principle or that the sentence she imposed is demonstrably unfit in the circumstances. Mr.

Goforth’s appeal against his sentence is dismissed for the reasons given by Caldwell J.A. in Goforth SKCA . “Caldwell J.A.” Caldwell J.A. “Leurer J.A.” Leurer J.A. “Barrington-Foote J.A.” Barrington-Foote J.A.