R v Martineau

R v Martineau [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on the mens rea requirement for murder.

Background

One evening in February 1985, 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 going to commit only breaking and entering and that no one would be killed. However, during the robbery Tremblay shot and killed Mr. and Mrs. McLean.

Martineau was charged with second degree murder under s.213(a) and (d) of the Criminal Code (now s. 230(a) and (d)) for both deaths (under s.21(1) and (2)) and was transferred to adult court.

At trial, Martineau was convicted. At appeal, in 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.

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.

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 if a person causes the death of another while committing specific indictable offences, such as breaking and entering. 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. That was in contrast to the other murder provisions in the Code, which 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 the severity of the punishment and the social stigma stemming from conviction. Murder is a major indictable offence: both the punishment and stigma stemming from conviction are severe. They were the case so the state must show subjective foresight and intent 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.

Dissent

L'Heureux-Dube J., alone, dissented. She held that s.213(a) did not violate either section of the Charter. According to her, subjective foresight of death for the offence of murder was not a principle of fundamental justice.

Comments

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

See also

• List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (Lamer Court)

External links

• Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision at LexUM and CanLII