R. v. Lamoureux
The firearms convictions on counts 3 and 4 were set aside because the trial judge's reasons did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the weapon was a firearm; counts 1,2 and 5 were substituted with convictions for use and possession of an imitation firearm by agreement of counsel; the robbery conviction was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2009 ONCA 370
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Mark Pierre Lamoureux
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 5 May 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- Conviction appeal allowed in part and sentence appeal allowed; convictions on counts 3 and 4 set aside and acquittals entered; convictions on counts 1, 2 and 5 set aside and substituted with convictions for use and possession of an imitation firearm; conviction on count 6 upheld; sentence reduced from...
- Legal Topics
- Robbery, Firearms, Imitation Firearm, Sentence Reduction, Conviction Appeal
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Mark Pierre Lamoureux
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the robbery verdict was unreasonable
- 2 Whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the weapon was a firearm
- 3 Whether convictions should be substituted for use and possession of an imitation firearm
Ratio Decidendi
The firearms convictions on counts 3 and 4 were set aside because the trial judge's reasons did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the weapon was a firearm; counts 1,2 and 5 were substituted with convictions for use and possession of an imitation firearm by agreement of counsel; the robbery conviction was upheld; the sentence was reduced from 5.5 years to 5 years taking into account substituted convictions and pre-trial custody.
Court Disposition
Conviction appeal allowed in part and sentence appeal allowed; convictions on counts 3 and 4 set aside and acquittals entered; convictions on counts 1, 2 and 5 set aside and substituted with convictions for use and possession of an imitation firearm; conviction on count 6 upheld; sentence reduced from...
Orders
- Convictions on counts 3 and 4 set aside and acquittals entered.
- Convictions on counts 1, 2 and 5 set aside and substituted with convictions for use and possession of an imitation firearm.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Lamoureux Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2009-05-05 Neutral citation 2009 ONCA 370 Docket numbers C47877 Judges Laskin, John Ivan; Cronk, Eleanore Ann; LaForme, Harry Smith Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: R. v. Lamoureux, 2009 ONCA 370 DATE: 20090505 DOCKET: C47877 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Laskin, Cronk and LaForme JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Mark Pierre Lamoureux Appellant Howard L. Krongold, for the appellant Holly Loubert, for the respondent Heard and released orally: April 24, 2009 On appeal from the conviction entered on May 24, 2007 and the sentence imposed on August 14, 2007, by Justice Denis J. Power of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury. ENDORSEMENT [1] We did not call on the Crown on the appeal from the robbery conviction. Largely for the reasons set out in the Crown’s factum, we are not persuaded that the verdict is unreasonable. [2] On the firearms convictions, we cannot be satisfied from the trial judge’s reasons that he made the requisite finding to the criminal standard of proof that the weapon in question was a firearm. Therefore, the convictions on counts 3 and 4 must be set aside and acquittals entered. As agreed by counsel, the convictions on counts 1, 2 and 5 are set aside and convictions for use and possession of an imitation firearm are substituted. The conviction on count 6 remains. [3] In the light of the substituted convictions, the appellant is entitled to a reduction of his sentence. After taking account of pre-trial custody and in view of the appellant’s record, we reduce the sentence from five-and-a-half years to five years. [4] As set out above, the conviction appeal is allowed in part and the sentence appeal is allowed. “John Laskin J.A.” “E.A. Cronk J.A.” “H.S. LaForme J.A.”