Parenteau v. The Queen
- Citation
- [1977] 2 SCR 399
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 31 January 1977
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (final)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 31 January 1977
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (final)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
In the particular circumstances, the trial judge committed no error in his directions to the jury; the appellant's challenge to the judge's comments on counsel's addresses did not justify overturning the conviction.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction for non-capital murder affirmed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Conviction affirmed
02
Material facts
Parties
Denise Parenteau
Appellant Counsel: Bernard LamarcheHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: Pierre VerdonAmounts and remedies
- Report Page: 399
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (final)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial judge erred in commenting on admissions made during counsels' addresses to the jury
- 02
Whether any alleged error in the trial judge's directions required setting aside the murder conviction
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that the trial judge improperly commented on admissions made during counsel's addresses, rendering the jury directions erroneous and warranting reversal of the conviction.
- Respondent
- The Crown submitted that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the trial judge's comments did not constitute error and the conviction should be affirmed.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Parenteau v. The Queen, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 399
A trial judge's remarks on counsel's addresses are not automatically reversible error absent prejudice to the accused.
- 02
Parenteau v. The Queen, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 399
An appellate court will not overturn jury directions unless an error can be shown to have affected the fairness of the trial.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
In the particular circumstances, the trial judge committed no error in his directions to the jury; the appellant's challenge to the judge's comments on counsel's addresses did not justify overturning the conviction.
Obiter and limits
- The Court noted it was unnecessary to hear further oral argument from counsel for the respondent.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction for non-capital murder affirmed.
- Appeal dismissed
- Conviction affirmed
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 31 January 1977
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 31 January 1977
Parenteau v. The Queen Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1977-01-31 Report [1977] 2 SCR 399 Judges Martland, Ronald; Judson, Wilfred; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Spence, Wishart Flett; Pigeon, Louis-Philippe; Dickson, Robert George Brian; Beetz, Jean; de Grandpré, Louis-Philippe On appeal from Quebec Subjects Criminal law Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Parenteau v. The Queen, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 399 Date: 1977-01-31 Denise Parenteau Appellant; and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent. 1977: January 31. Present: Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR QUEBEC Criminal law—Charge to the jury—Comment by judge on admissions made during counsels’ addresses—No error in directions. APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec[1], affirming a judgment of the Court of Queen’s Bench, Crown side, declaring appellant guilty of non-capital murder. Appeal dismissed. Bernard Lamarche, for the appellant. Pierre Verdon, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by MARTLAND J.—It will not be necessary to hear you, Mr. Verdon. We are all of the opinion that in the particular circumstances of this case, the trial judge committed no error in his directions to the jury. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Solicitors for the appellant: Lamarche & Denis, Montreal. Solicitor for the respondent: Pierre Verdon, Montreal. [1] [1975] C.A. 56.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.