The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal found no merit in the arguments put forward by Joshua Larose, including that his 15-year sentence was “demonstrably unfit.”
Article content
Saskatchewan’s top court has dismissed the sentence appeal of Joshua Louis Larose, who fatally stabbed Matthew Bossenberry after they fought in the summer of 2020.
Bossenberry was found dead Aug. 24, 2020. Larose stood trial on a charge of second-degree murder and was convicted by a jury of the lesser included offence of manslaughter on Nov. 25, 2022 — a verdict that rejected his argument that he stabbed Bossenberry in self defence.
Advertisement 2
Article content
Court of King’s Bench Chief Justice Martel Popescul gave his sentencing decision on Feb. 3, 2023. He handed Larose a 15-year penalty that fell much closer to the 16-year term suggested by the Crown than the eight years suggested as suitable by the defence.
Larose appealed the sentence that same month, arguing Popescul’s decision was too harsh.
Bossenberry’s death resulted from a series of events put into motion when Larose, only just released from jail, travelled to a Cameron Street home. Court heard he lied his way inside in order to harm another man (not Bossenberry).
Larose sprayed bear mace at the occupants of the home. Bossenberry then engaged in a fight with Larose, and the now-deceased man eventually struck Larose several times with a two-by-four plank.
Court heard it was after sustaining these blows that Larose lashed out with a blade, delivering the fatal wound to Bossenberry.
Larose’s appeal arguments were addressed in the July 12 decision from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, which runs 26 pages.
The decision written by Chief Justice Robert Leurer, with Justices Jerome Tholl and Meghan McCreary in agreement, rejects them all.
Headline News
Article content
Advertisement 3
Article content
Larose argued Popescul was mistaken in finding he’d brought the knife with him to the home.
“Whether Mr. Larose had come to the house with the knife was important because it bore on the degree of planning for harm, or the creation of risk of harm, that Mr. Larose’s enterprise entailed,” the appeal decision reads.
Recommended from Editorial
Larose’s wife told police the knife was hers but she later denied it at trial.
The Court of Appeal judges took no issue with Popescul’s ruling on the point.
They also rejected notions that Popescul made errors relating to his understanding of the fight’s dynamics, and in his characterization of the incident as having been carried out in the course of a “home invasion.”
The appeal decision devotes much ink to addressing issues related to Gladue factors, which refer to circumstances that affect Indigenous offenders. Larose had argued Popescul erred in this regard, and sought to have a more extensive Gladue report admitted as evidence on the appeal.
Advertisement 4
Article content
The appeal decision states: “the judge explicitly found that Gladue factors contributed to Mr. Larose’s poverty, addictions, criminal lifestyle and lack of pro-social supports, and hence helped explain why he came before the courts. The judge explicitly found that they mitigated his moral culpability albeit to a limited extent only.”
Leurer wrote it was at Popescul’s behest that a pre-sentence report which touched on Gladue factors was ordered, and that Larose’s lawyer never said the report was inadequate.
“Considered in the context of the arguments that were made to the judge, I see no merit to the criticism that he failed to adopt a sufficiently inquisitorial approach or that his analysis lacked the appropriate introspection,” the appeal decision reads.
No evidence was presented about why a more extensive Gladue report couldn’t have been brought forward at the time of sentencing, had it been requested. To admit it on appeal would be “inimical to the interests of justice,” according to the appeal decision.
“I am left to conclude that the reason the Gladue report was not before the judge when sentence was imposed was because of a complete absence of due diligence to bring it forward at that time,” Leurer wrote.
Advertisement 5
Article content
The appeal court’s chief justice also wrote he saw no merit in Larose’s argument that the sentence he received was not comparable to those given in similar past cases, adding that Popescul “dipped deeply into the well of precedent.”
Further, the appeal decision rejected Larose’s argument that Popescul made a mistake in attaching significance to the fact that he hadn’t pleaded guilty. Pleading guilty is considered a mitigating factor, and it was appropriate for Popescul to mention the absence of a guilty plea in differentiating this case from others, the appeal decision notes.
“Having regard to all the circumstances of this case,” it reads, “I find it impossible to conclude that the sentence Mr. Larose received was demonstrably unfit.”
The Regina Leader-Post has created an Afternoon Headlines newsletter that can be delivered daily to your inbox so you are up to date with the most vital news of the day. Click here to subscribe.
With some online platforms blocking access to the journalism upon which you depend, our website is your destination for up-to-the-minute news, so make sure to bookmark leaderpost.com and sign up for our newsletters so we can keep you informed. Click here to subscribe.
Article content
