R. v. Chicoine-Joubert
- Citation
- 2025 SCC 3
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 20 February 2025
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada — Judgment Rendered
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 20 February 2025
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada — Judgment Rendered
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
A majority dismissed the appeal because the trial judge’s instructions and answer were sufficient and did not create a reasonable possibility that jurors misunderstood the mens rea required for second degree murder; accordingly the convictions for second degree murder and assault with a weapon were upheld, while a dissent would have allowed the appeal on the ground that the judge erred in failing to adequately answer jury questions about manslaughter.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; convictions for second degree murder and assault with a weapon affirmed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Convictions for second degree murder and assault with a weapon affirmed
02
Material facts
Parties
Maxime Chicoine-Joubert
Appellant Counsel: Marie-Hélène GirouxHis Majesty The King
Respondent Counsel: Robert Benoit03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada — Judgment Rendered
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial judge failed to instruct the jury on the mens rea required for manslaughter
- 02
Whether the trial judge’s answer to the jury’s questions about manslaughter was adequate
- 03
Whether any charge or answer error gave rise to a reasonable possibility of a miscarriage of justice affecting the conviction for second degree murder
- 04
Whether an accused’s concession to a lesser offence can negate the need for jury instructions on that offence
- 05
Whether the convictions should be upheld
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to mention the mens rea required for manslaughter in the jury charge and in answers to the jury’s questions, creating a reasonable possibility that jurors misunderstood the mens rea required for second degree murder and rendering the conviction unsafe.
- Respondent
- The Crown argued that the trial judge’s instructions and answer were sufficient, that the judge did not need to instruct on manslaughter because the accused conceded guilt to that offence, and that there was no reasonable possibility of a miscarriage of justice so convictions should be upheld.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Supreme Court of Canada precedent
Trial judge must instruct the jury on the essential elements of offences, including mens rea, where relevant to the issues the jury must decide
- 02
Supreme Court of Canada precedent
Appellate review assesses whether an error created a reasonable possibility of a miscarriage of justice affecting the verdict
- 03
Common law principle as applied by the Court of Appeal
Where an accused clearly concedes a particular offence, a trial judge may not be required to give full instructions on that offence
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
A majority dismissed the appeal because the trial judge’s instructions and answer were sufficient and did not create a reasonable possibility that jurors misunderstood the mens rea required for second degree murder; accordingly the convictions for second degree murder and assault with a weapon were upheld, while a dissent would have allowed the appeal on the ground that the judge erred in failing to adequately answer jury questions about manslaughter.
Obiter and limits
- The need for an instruction on a lesser included offence depends on the issues before the jury and any concession by the accused
- Clear and adequate answers to jury questions on lesser offences are important to avoid potential juror confusion regarding mens rea
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; convictions for second degree murder and assault with a weapon affirmed
- Appeal dismissed
- Convictions for second degree murder and assault with a weapon affirmed
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 20 February 2025
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· 20 February 2025
R. v. Chicoine-Joubert Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 2025-02-20 Neutral citation 2025 SCC 3 Case number 41262 Judges Wagner, Richard; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Côté, Suzanne; Martin, Sheilah; Kasirer, Nicholas; Jamal, Mahmud; Moreau, Mary On appeal from Quebec Subjects Criminal law Notes Case in Brief SCC Case Information Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. Chicoine-Joubert, 2025 SCC 3 Appeal Heard: February 20, 2025 Judgment Rendered: February 20, 2025 Docket: 41262 Between: Maxime Chicoine-Joubert Appellant and His Majesty The King Respondent Official English Translation Coram: Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Côté, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal and Moreau JJ. Judgment Read By: (paras. 1 to 2) Wagner C.J. Majority: Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Côté, Martin, Kasirer and Moreau JJ. Dissent: Jamal J. Note: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports. Maxime Chicoine-Joubert Appellant v. His Majesty The King Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Chicoine-Joubert 2025 SCC 3 File No.: 41262. 2025: February 20. Present: Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Côté, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal and Moreau JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec Criminal law — Charge to jury — Manslaughter — Accused charged with first degree murder and assault with weapon — Accused convicted by jury of second degree murder and assault with weapon — Accused appealing conviction for second degree murder on ground that trial judge failed to mention mens rea required for offence of manslaughter in his instructions to jury and in his answer to jury’s questions about that offence — Majority of Court of Appeal finding that trial judge’s instructions and answer were
sufficient given that trial judge did not need to instruct jury on manslaughter because accused conceded that he was guilty of that offence — Dissenting judge finding that trial judge erred by not adequately answering jury’s questions about offence of manslaughter and that there was therefore reasonable possibility that jurors misunderstood what mens rea was required for second degree murder — Convictions upheld. APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (Vauclair, Hamilton and Bachand JJ.A.), 2024 QCCA 488, [2024] AZ-52021940, [2024] J.Q. no 3061 (Lexis), 2024 CarswellQue 3729 (WL), affirming the convictions of the accused for second degree murder and assault with a weapon. Appeal dismissed, Jamal J. dissenting. Marie-Hélène Giroux, for the appellant. Robert Benoit, for the respondent. English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by [1] The Chief Justice — A majority of the Court would dismiss the appeal, substantially for the reasons of the majority of the Quebec Court of Appeal. [2] Justice Jamal, for his part, would have allowed the appeal, substantially for the reasons of the dissenting judge. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Marie-Hélène Giroux Avocats Inc., Montréal. Solicitor for the respondent: Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, Montréal.
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.