R. v. Ménard

R. v. Ménard

The trial judge's instructions on causation under s.231(5) were inadequate, rendering the jury's conviction for first degree murder unsafe; although a properly instructed jury could have convicted of second degree murder, the Court could not conclude no other reasonable verdict was possible, so substitution under s.686(3) was inappropriate and a new trial on the original indictment was ordered.

Citation
2005 SCC 4
Parties
Appellant / Respondent on Cross Appeal: Daniel Ménard; Respondent / Appellant on Cross Appeal: Her Majesty the Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Quebec Court of Appeal; Final Judgment Ordering New Trial
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal allowed in part; conviction for first degree murder set aside; new trial ordered on original indictment for first degree murder.
Legal Topics
Causation, Jury Charge, First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder, New Trial, Criminal Code S.231(5) and S.686(3)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Murder Appeal Causation Jury Charge First Degree Murder Second Degree Murder New Trial +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Ménard

Appellant / Respondent on Cross Appeal

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent / Appellant on Cross Appeal

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Quebec Court of Appeal; Final Judgment Ordering New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's jury charge on causation under s.231(5) of the Criminal Code was fatally flawed
  2. 2 Whether the jury's conviction for first degree murder should be set aside
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal was authorised under s.686(3) to substitute a conviction for second degree murder or whether a new trial must be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's instructions on causation under s.231(5) were inadequate, rendering the jury's conviction for first degree murder unsafe; although a properly instructed jury could have convicted of second degree murder, the Court could not conclude no other reasonable verdict was possible, so substitution under s.686(3) was inappropriate and a new trial on the original indictment was ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal allowed in part; conviction for first degree murder set aside; new trial ordered on original indictment for first degree murder.

Orders

  • Conviction for first degree murder set aside
  • New trial ordered on a charge of first degree murder