Child stalker conviction appeal denied

Convicted child stalker Eric Davidson Brown has had a conviction appeal turned down by an Ontario Superior Court judge.

Justice Norman Karam denied the appeal Wednesday, after considering arguments made by Brown’s lawyer Yaroslav Mikitchook.

Monitoring device
Brown was found guilty last April of two counts of indecent exposure and nine counts of breach of probation.

Mikitchook was appealing those convictions and the accompanying nine-month prison sentence handed down by Justice Gregory Rodgers, of the Ontario Court.

Justice Rodgers also ordered that Brown wear an electronic monitoring device after he's released from jail as part of his probation.

Justice Karam did not grant the appeal on the conviction but reserved his decision on the sentencing for "seven days."

Stun guns
The indecent exposure charges involved incidents which occurred at North Bay beaches in the summer of 2002 in which Brown exposed himself to two girls; the breach of probation charges involved accounts of Brown talking to children or buying them food at the North Bay YMCA during the same time period, as well as being near city beaches and in the presence of children under 16.

A Superior Court judge had already sentenced Brown to 15 months in jail for incidents in 2002 when he disguised himself while lurking near a Mattawa elementary school, and breached court orders by exposing himself to a girl at her home in the town.

Two stun guns, duct tape and two notebooks filled with names and addresses of local children were among the items found by police in the trunk of Brown’s car when they arrested him in Mattawa.

Brown pleaded guilty in the case to possessing prohibited weapons and disguising himself with the intent of breaching a probation order.

Similar facts
In arguing the conviction, Mikitchook said Justice Rodgers had waded into a “river of reversible error” by allowing into evidence similarities between the earlier Mattawa incidents involving Brown to the occurrences in North Bay as a way of identifying a suspect.

“It’s inappropriate to use similar facts and to do so takes a shortcut in proof of identity,” Mikitchook said.

Mikitchook also said there were differences between the two incidents in North Bay, one at the Clifford Street beach and the other at the Charles Street beach.

Wide discretion
Justice Karam said Mikitchook had agreed to the facts when
Brown had been initially convicted and should have argued them then.

He also ruled Justice Rodgers had considered the evidence "in context," and that trial judges have been given the right of "wide discretion" in considering evidence.

As well, Justice Karam ruled the differences in evidence between the Mattawa and North Bay cases "lack any significance, in my view."

Invasive
In arguing against the electronic monitoring device Justice Rodgers ordered as part of the North Bay sentence, Mikitchook said there were no legal precedents "which permit or which support the imposition of a monitoring bracelet or anklet on a person subsequent to a sentence.”

Mikitchook called the device "invasive."

Brown, 44, was not in court for the appeal hearing and wasn't required to be there.

He also faces unrelated charges of possessing child pornography between Nov. 1, 2000 and Sept. 19, 2002.

Those charges are being heard in Parry Sound, since Brown was living in South River at the time.