Trial proceeds for Windsor man accused of indecent exposure
Garnett Fredrick Smith, 67, formerly of Windsor, had his day in court on a recent indecent exposure charge and alleged breach of his parole.
The Oct. 29 trial, which lasted approximately three hours and involved testimony from three witnesses, including the complainant, went through the various components of the alleged incident.
Many of the details, such as the exact location in Windsor where it is alleged the incident occurred, can’t be detailed due to a publication ban protecting the identity of the complainant.
Smith is alleged to have exposed his penis to a minor on May 28 of this year.
Smith received three years of probation, with strict conditions, and 90 days in custody, intermittently served on weekends, for incidents involving two minors for previous convictions on sex-related charges.
During the recent trial, the alleged victim took the stand and said that Smith exposed his penis to her. She was under 14 at the time.
In his closing statement, Crown attorney Bill Fergusson said the girl gave credible testimony, saying she recalled clearly what took place the day of the incident.
“She was very matter-of-fact about what happened,” Fergusson said. “She was certain that she saw what she saw.”
Although she was unable to recall what Smith was wearing the day of the incident, Fergusson said, “I doubt her attention would have been focused on what he was or wasn’t wearing. There’s one point of interest, if you will.”
He also said that, although he’s not required to do so, Smith offered no testimony of his own and didn’t deny what took place.
Chrystal MacAulay, the defence lawyer representing Smith, suggested the complainant was fabricating the incident because she doesn’t like Smith due to their previous matters and was making the allegations as a way to get Smith away from her something she said has clearly worked, as Smith no longer lives in Windsor.
“Clearly, the defence is suggesting that these prior offences would give this complainant legitimate reasons to not like Mr. Smith,” MacAulay said. “She would go so far to say that she hates him. That isn’t surprising, given the prior offences we’re talking about.”
She also questioned whether or not the complainant would have been able to see her client with the amount of obstructions between them at the time.
“Either (she’s) fabricating this event or she’s simply mistaken of what she saw,” she added.
She also brought up what she described as gaps or inconsistencies in her testimony.
“The things I would assume that she would remember, she doesn’t.” MacAulay said. “She was quite clear that she could see Smith… that his penis was exposed, but she couldn’t remember if he was wearing shorts or pants… and she couldn’t remember what his face looked like at the time.
“She indicated as well that she wasn’t sure where his hands were, they were either on his legs or his penis. If we assume that this was a tunnel-vision, so to speak, and that she was only looking at his penis, then I would suggest she should be able to tell us if his hands were on his penis at that time.”
The complainant denied fabricating the events during her testimony.
At the conclusion of the trial Oct. 29, Judge Christopher Manning said he would have his decision ready on Nov. 2.