Saskatchewan’s top court has upheld the conviction of a woman who has been serving time in prison for the death of one child placed in her care, and for the harm suffered by another child.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and 17-year second degree murder sentence of Regina woman Tammy Goforth on Tuesday.
She and her husband, Kevin Goforth, were found guilty in the death of a four-year-old child who had been placed in their care in 2012.
The child, whose identity is protected under a publication ban, starved until she suffered a heart attack and died in hospital.
Kevin was sentenced to 15 years in prison for manslaughter in connection with the child’s death.
Both Tammy and Kevin also received five years for causing bodily harm to the child’s two-year-old sister, to be served concurrently.
Both appealed the homicide convictions and sentences, however, only Kevin decided to move forward with an appeal of the charge of bodily harm.
The couple’s appeal hearing took place in January of 2019, during which Tammy’s lawyer, Brian Pfefferle, called the case a “catastrophic, horrible case of neglect.”
He argued, though, that the verdict was unreasonable, and said the jury found Tammy more culpable than her husband based on the same evidence.
He added that Tammy’s failure to provide adequate medical care should not equate to murder.
Kevin’s lawyer, Brian Hill, argued that Justice Ellen Gunn had erred in her instructions to the jury, and that his sentence should be between seven and 10 years.
Hill also said Kevin had limited involvement with the young child, as he worked during the day, and therefore did not understand their condition.
While the court upheld Tammy Goforth’s conviction on Tuesday, a two-to-one split among the judges resulted in a new trial being ordered for Kevin Goforth.
In the decision released Tuesday, Justices Robert Leurer and Brian Barrington-Footes said there is “a reasonable possibility that the errors we have identified in the charge may have misled the jury.”
“It cannot be said that the outcome of the trial on the charges against Mr. Goforth would necessarily have been the same if these errors had not occurred,” the decision reads.
“The Crown did not contend otherwise. In these circumstances, a new trial on the charges against Mr. Goforth is required.”