Cop on trial claims ‘practical joke’ not sex assault
By COLLIN GALLANT on March 5, 2022.
cgallant@medicinehatnews.com@CollinGallant An off-duty Medicine Hat police officer accused of sexual assaulting a waitress testified Friday the incident was a “harmless prank” to slip a marijuana joint into her front pocket. Chance Franklin, a 12-year police veteran, was charged in October 2020 with sexual assault, and took the stand in his own defence during the two-day trial which concluded Friday in Medicine Hat provincial court. “It wasn’t well planned, well executed, and I immediately regretted it,” said Franklin during cross-examination after saying the incident was a practical joke gone wrong. “It’s caused my family embarrassment, my employer embarrassment and (the woman) embarrassment.” Franklin was off-duty at the time, and said he found the half-smoked joint in the parking lot and didn’t smoke it himself. He was interviewed that night by officers, then charged and suspended without pay several days later. In court Friday, Crown prosecutors argued Franklin was more intoxicated than he says, and the explanation of his motivation is unbelievable. Crown prosecutor Vince Pingitore said Franklin was “aggressive and obnoxious” and pressed himself against the much shorter women, then put his hand in her crotch. “It’s not trifling,” said Pingitore. “He’s got a theory about why he touched her … the court cannot believe the accused’s version of events. “It’s a convenient explanation for why he smelled like marijuana in the back of a police car, and why he touched a women’s vagina. It defies all common sense.” Judge Sylvia Oishi reserved judgment Friday to deliberate on evidence of the case. She plans to deliver her verdict March 18 in Lethbridge. Franklin also faces a potential Police Act hearing once the criminal case is resolved, which could determine professional disciplinary action. Defence attorney Alain Hepner argued Franklin’s actions were “ill-advised and unacceptable” but didn’t constitute criminal misconduct. “There is an issue of credibility, and corroboration and if there was a sexual assault,” said Hepner. “Sexual assault is an intent (based) offence. It’s a ridiculous prank to play, but that’s not the issue, it’s not a sexual assault.” Court heard Franklin went out with a group of male friends on Oct. 10, 2021 and attended two local bars after 10 p.m. He said he had a four drinks during the entire day, including one at a round of golf that afternoon, though bar staff described him as “wobbly” and two officers who attended the scene stated they considered him intoxicated. A bartender at the second bar had cut Franklin off from service after midnight after he was rude, but he continued to play pool, then sometime later went to the parking lot with a friend to smoke a cigarette. At that point he said he found the stub of a cannabis joint and planned to play a “practical joke.” Re-entering the establishment, he approached a random waitress who was facing the bar, touched her shoulder, then “high-fived” her as she turned around and reached toward the area below her waist with the other hand. Contact was made, but defence and prosecutors argue whether it was with her side pocket or her crotch. The complainant and witnesses testified Thursday that at the moment she screamed, “you grabbed my vagina” and told him to get out of the bar, but under cross-examination from the defence said the contact lasted less than a second. Crown prosecutor questioned him at length about his actions after the incident. He said he dropped the joint-end, but didn’t try to retrieve it or offer an explanation, but rather walked away “to diffuse” the situation, in his words. He remained in the establishment however, until a manager told him the police were being called, but he remained in the parking lot waiting for a friend. At that point police officers arrived and began questioning him, at one point placing him in a patrol car. He went home and was then put on administrative duty at his next shift, then suspended without pay and charged shortly thereafter. (Editor’s Note: This article was edited on May 12, 2022 to properly identify the judge in the matter. ) 27-26
