Reduced sentence frustrating

The family of a Salmon Arm man killed in December 2006 is extremely disappointed that the man responsible for his death has had his sentence reduced.

In the B.C. Court of Appeal in Vancouver on June 18, a trio of judges ruled that the sentence of Zdenko Ispanovic, 70, should be reduced from a total of eight years to six.

Ispanovic was originally sentenced in October 2007 after pleading guilty to manslaughter in the killing of Matti Laitinen, 51.

His initial eight-year sentence included a jail term of six years and four months, with an additional 20 months’ credit for 10 months of pre-sentence custody.

During initial sentencing, Crown counsel Greg Koturbash had suggested a sentence in the range of six to nine years, while defence lawyer Ian McTavish sought a sentence from five to seven years.

Defence lawyer, B.W. Sundhu, who represented Ispanovic at the Court of Appeal hearing, suggested a jail term of four years, which, when taking into account pre-trial custody, would amount to five years, eight months.

Kris deVeer, Laitinen’s sister, expressed her disappointment following the judges’ decision.

“From the family’s point of view, it’s unjust, it’s wrong. People have been convicted and sentenced for longer periods of time for what would be considered a lesser crime. What’s the value of a life these days?”

In her reasons for judgment, Madam Justice Saunders of the Court of Appeal stated, “There are, however, in this case several features which, in my respectful opinion, were either incorrect or were not given the appropriate weight.”

She referred to Ispanovic’s guilty plea.

“It may be said that the early guilty plea spared the family and friends from the uncertainty of a trial, and his early assumption of responsibility allowed the police to husband their resources by abbreviating an investigation into the identity of the person responsible for the death. The early guilty plea also indicates that Mr. Ispanovic has taken responsibility for the crime, which is a step in his rehabilitation.”

The judge also said that Ispanovic had had no criminal record for violent offences.

Thirdly, she stated: “Mr. Ispanovic is a 70-year-old man who had, by the time of trial, and by necessity as he was in jail, abstained from liquor and who to the court forswore the habit. This feature is relevant to the risk that Mr. Ispanovic poses to the community in the future. While these several features were mentioned, their impact, in my view, is such that they necessarily move the sentence out of the high end that was imposed.”

The final factor, she stated, is what “I would call a mischaracterization of the undoubtedly fragile and vulnerable situation of Mr. Laitinen as an aggravating factor..."

She went on to state that Ispanovic was not aware of Laitenen's vulnerability.

DeVeer disagrees with the judge's view. For instance, she noted that the guilty plea was not entered until after the trial date had been set and about a week before the trial was scheduled to begin. Regarding the fact that Laitinen had sustained a debilitating head injury in 2001, and that Ispanovic wasn’t aware of this vulnerability, deVeer doesn’t think Ispanovic’s ignorance should have been considered.

“It’s a moot point. You take a life, it doesn’t matter whether the person had a disability or not. The fact remains, a life was taken.”

Ispanovic shot Laitinen twice in the chest with a sawed-off semi-automatic shotgun, eventually killing him.

During sentencing the court heard that the men had been drinking together during the night of Dec. 20 and were extremely intoxicated. The killing was not discovered until the next morning.

When police arrived, Laitinen was on a bed. A local taxi driver who discovered him that morning could not get a response from either man. When police arrived, Ispanovic, who was visibly intoxicated, told officers a number of different stories.

He told police it was possible he shot Laitinen, but he does not know why he would have done such a thing. He added, if it did happen, “The guy must have been asking for it.”

During the sentencing hearing, Crown counsel noted Ispanovic’s previous drinking record which included four impaired driving charges between 1988 and 2006, as well as a charge of careless use of a firearm in 1991.

Ispanovic’s defence lawyer described Ispanovic as a “gentle drunk” who lived an impoverished life, sustaining himself with eggs from the chickens he raised, and alcohol.

While the Crown had noted that since being in prison Ispanovic had not taken steps to address his alcohol addiction, the defence said even though Ispanovic hadn’t participated in any prison treatment programs, he had decided not to continue drinking.

Laitenen’s family remains disappointed and frustrated.

“It’s horribly disappointing because when you talk about the time a person serves, my brother’s serving a life sentence. He’s gone and nothing’s going to bring him back and we’re going to have to live with that.”