R. v. Martineau

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

R. v. Martineau

Hearing: March 26, 1990
Judgment: September 13, 1990


Full case name:	Her Majesty The Queen v. Roderick Russell Martineau
Citations:	[1990] 2 S.C.R. 633
History:	-

Court membership

Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer
Puisne Justices: Bertha Wilson, Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, William Stevenson

Reasons given

Majority by: Lamer C.J.
Joined by: Dickson C.J. and Wilson, Gonthier, and Cory JJ.
Concurrence by: Sopinka J.
Dissent by: L'Heureux-Dubé J.

R. v. Martineau [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on the mens rea requirement for murder. This case follows up on the issues discussed by the court in R. v. Vaillancourt and concludes that crimes with "stigmas" require proof of subjective foresight.

1 Background
2 Ruling
- 2.1 Majority
- 2.2 Dissent
3 Comments
4 See also
5 External links

[edit] Background

One evening in February of 1990, Patrick Tremblay and 15 year-old Mr. Martineau set out to rob a trailer owned by the McLean family in Valleyview, Alberta. Martineau was armed with a pellet gun and Tremblay was armed with a rifle. Martineau was under the impression that they were only going to commit breaking and entering and no one would be killed. However, during the robbery Tremblay shot and killed Mr. and Mrs. McLean.

Martineau was charged with second degree murder (s.213(a) and (d) of the Criminal Code of Canada) for both deaths (under s.21(1) and (2)) and was transferred to adult court.

At trial Martineau was convicted. But in appeal at the Alberta Court of Appeal the court overturned the decision, concluding that s.213(a) violated s.7 and s.11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The issue before the Court was whether the appeal court was correct in holding s.213(a) as a violation of ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.

[edit] Ruling

The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Appeal Court. s.213(a), deciding that it violated the Charter and could not be saved under s.1.

[edit] Majority

The Majority was written by Lamer C.J.C. with Dickson C.J.C., Wilson, Gonthier, and Cory JJ concurring.

Section 213(a) is known as the "constructive murder" provision of the criminal code. Section 213(a) defined culpable homicide as murder where a person causes the death of another while committing specific indictable offences, such as breaking and entering. This meant that one could be charged with murder under s. 213(a), despite having had neither an intent to kill nor the subjective knowledge that death might ensue from their actions. This was in contrast to the other murder provisions in the Code that require a subjective intent and foresight for a conviction.

Section 213(a) of the Code violated both ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter. Specifically, it violated the principle of fundamental justice that an appropriate mens rea must be proven by the Crown. Furthermore, the appropriate level of mens rea should be correlated to (1) the severity of the punishment and (2) the social stigma stemming from conviction. Murder is a major indictable offence: both the punishment and stigma stemming from conviction are severe. This being the case, the state must show subjective foresight and intent in order to prove the offence. However, as stated above, such a requirement was absent from s. 213(a). Thus, the violation was not justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter because it failed the proportionality test.

[edit] Dissent

L'Heureux-Dube J., alone, dissented. She held that s.213(a) did not violate either section of the Charter.

Please help improve this section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.

[edit] Comments

It should be noted that the judgment cites two Chief Justices. That is because Dickson was Chief Justice at the time of the hearing but retired before the judgement and was replaced by Lamer who wrote the decision as Chief Justice.