Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /home/christo1/public_html/wp-content/plugins/paper-template/papertemplate.php(15) : eval()'d code(3) : eval()'d code on line 336
On August 16, 2011 Keith Gregory Wiens shot and killed Lynn Kalmring. That is a fact undisputed by Wiens himself, who admitted to killing his common-law spouse in court.
He claimed the killing was in self-defense, a claim that was ultimately rejected by the jury as they took little time, just a few hours, to convict Wiens of second degree murder. Clearly they didn’t believe anything he said.
The sentencing hearing after his conviction made it clear Wiens ought to spend a considerable length of time in prison.
 THE COURT: Keith Gregory Wiens has been convicted by a jury of the second degree murder of his common law spouse, Lynn Kalmring.
 During the trial, Mr. Wiens testified in his own defence. He maintained that he killed Ms. Kalmring in self?defence. The jury rejected his evidence.
 Following the return of the verdict, the jury was asked, as required by s. 745.2 of the Criminal Code, for their recommendation as to the length of time that Mr. Wiens should serve in custody before being eligible to apply for parole. They unanimously recommended that he serve 20 years.
 The Crown argues that I should impose a period of 15 years of parole ineligibility. They argue that there are several aggravating circumstances. The first is that because Ms. Kalmring was Mr. Wiens’ common law spouse, killing her necessarily amounts to an abuse of her, and by virtue of s. 718.2(a)(ii), that is an aggravating circumstance. Second, the Crown argues that the fact that Mr. Wiens used a handgun, a handgun that he kept fully loaded and ready at hand, is an aggravating circumstance. Support for that proposition is said to be found in R. v. Jojic, 2012 BCCA 101 (CanLII), 2012 BCCA 101. Third, the Crown argues that the fact that Mr. Wiens shot his spouse in the face at close range and then attempted to manipulate the scene in an effort to avoid responsibility is an aggravating circumstance. Finally, the Crown argues that the unanimous recommendation of the jury is a clear signal of their view of the moral blameworthiness of Mr. Wiens.
 Because Mr. Wiens has been convicted of second degree murder, the sentence I must impose is one of life imprisonment. The issue now is whether the minimum period of imprisonment that he must actually serve before being eligible to apply for parole should be increased from 10 years, which is the minimum requirement set by the Criminal Code.
Ultimately the Honourable Mr. Justice Barrow decided that the minimum time for parole eligibility should be increased from the minimum to 13 years.
 Mr. Wiens, would you please stand up, sir.
 I sentence you to a period of imprisonment for life with no eligibility to apply for parole for a period of 13 years. I also order a lifetime weapons prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code, and order that you provide a DNA sample under s. 487.051.
The convicted murderer is now claiming that 13 years before being eligible for parole is “excessive” given his “unblemished past.”
In addition to his claim that 13 years is “excessive” he is also appealing the conviction on the grounds Justice Barrow did not give proper weight to certain pieces of evidence.
Where is my barf bucket?
Justice Barrow was not impressed with Wiens either.
 I am satisfied that Mr. Wiens’ action in killing Ms. Kalmring was impulsive and was borne of anger fuelled by alcohol.
Keith Gregory Wiens ought to be grateful the judge granted him protective custody as he certainly doesn’t deserve it. He should be placed in general population with all the other wife-beaters and murderers.
Since I first wrote about the senseless murder of Lynn Kalmring her sisters have reached out to me numerous times to thank me for covering the case and for standing up for their sister. From my own personal contact with each of them I can say without hesitation the entire family still mourns the loss of Lynn.
They are justifiably angry that her killer tried (and thankfully failed) to blame Lynn for her own death. That pain and anguish also came through loud and clear in court, as they were present throughout the trial and even testified in the case.
Justice Barrow does an excellent job of honouring Lynn's sisters, their pain and loss, and the consequences they still suffer as a result of one man's heinous and selfish act.
 I have not made mention of the consequences of this senseless killing for the family of Ms. Kalmring. I have not ignored those consequences. Although no victim impact information has been provided to me, I heard Ms. Kalmring's sister and her daughter testify. The pain and the sense of loss they both so profoundly feel was palpable. The consequences of this senseless killing do not end with Ms. Pertelson and Ms. Cummings. Ms. Kalmring's sisters have been present throughout this trial, and the emotional cost that the killing and the subsequent attempts to avoid responsibility for it are and have been obvious. I acknowledge that sense of loss and those consequences.
I hope and pray the BC Court of Appeals refuses to hear this appeal, or if they do, they increase the time Wiens spends in prison before he is eligible for parole. With a single gunshot to Lynn Kalmring's face this murderous ex-RCMP corporal sentenced Lynn's family to a life of pain and torment and I see no reason whatsoever for him to be shown any more leniency than he showed Lynn or her entire family.
You can read the full sentencing statement by Justice Barrow online at http://canlii.ca/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2013/2013bcsc1577/2013bcsc1577.html