R. V. Charemski Case Study

Case Studies (Textbook pg. #129-131)

R. v. Martineau

Men rea is used in determining whether an act is considered a crime, and is applied to an act if there is indication that the act was committed with intent or knowledge or a degree of recklessness. The mens era of murder is having malice intentions prior to killing someone, so the person has an intent to murder. The argument that helps support that Martineau did not have the mens rea for murder, is the fact that he did not shoot the couple, and instead it was his friend Tremblay who had fried the pellet pistol. Martineau cannot be held accountable since he had no malice intentions to kill the couple, his intentions were strictly centred with the break and enter, there is no evidence

that would suggest he had intentions to murder the homeowners. He was completely unaware of his friends intentions to murder, and there is evidence in the case that helped support this claim. Martineau’s motivations were strictly for a break and enter, and robbery, he never had the intent to kill, and was instead surprised and horrified by his partner, Tremblay’s actions. Martineau did not have a malice intentions or a motive to kill the couple, so under the law he does meet the required mens rea for that of murder.

The term subjective foresight connects to the issue of mens rea or intent, in the circumstances of subjective foresight the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had intent of their crimes.

This requires the prosecutor to contemplate and analyze the thought process and the psychological state of the person during the time of the crime. The conclusions of the motivation behind the accused actions is drawn from the evidence that is collected from the case. It also is a term used to refer to the removal of the stigma between murder and punishment, and the moral character of the accused.

R. v. Charemski

Causation is the cause of death, and in criminal law it is the connecting of conduct and physiological behaviour with a resulting effect, typically a serious injury or death. The analysis of the actus rea and mens read of the accused will assist the investigators in pinpointing the causation of the murder. In criminal law it is absolutely necessary to prove causation in order to convict an individual for first degree murder.

Crown must prove the causation of death in order for the charge of murder to be made out. Since, without full awareness of the cause of the death the Crown will have no ability in deciding on to whom and what murder charge should be

applied.

The circumstantial (indirect) evidence in the trial was used against the accused Charemski to draw inferences of the accused’s guilt or possible motives to commit the crime. It also used by the jury to draw conclusions between the presented circumstances and facts; in this case the evidence was being utilized against Charemski to attempt to prove him guilty of the crime of murder. Though this case lacked sufficient circumstantial evidence to confidently convict Charmenski as guilty, so in this case the evidence could not be strictly used to draw a verdict for the case.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision to order a new trial, since this level of court is obliged to hear the appeals of the provincial court. As well in this case’s verdict the judge indirectly stated that it was inaccurate to state a clear verdict, because of the circumstances, and evidence. The court upheld the decision to order a new trial since there may be new evidence, and this new evidence could alter the verdict of the case. As well their may be a bias in the jury, and by having a new trial it would help to ensure that the final decision that is arrived upon for the case, is the most appropriate and accurate one.

R. v. Parent and Thibert
Provocation in its broadest terms is defined as the actions taken or speech made to deliberately annoy or anger someone. Often times in law, provocation is used to justify violent or dangerous actions taken as an effort of self defence. Provocation is applied to law when an individual loses control and commits a violent crime. Provocation is only valid as a justification for self defence, if the circumstances are one in which a reasonable person placed in similar circumstances would have acted the same way. As well, the killing has to take place during the loss of self-control, otherwise if its after being provoked than the person would have time to plan, and this would become a case of murder not manslaughter.

Organizer for provocation evidence and elements that must be presented: 
For the first case of R. v. Parent, the accused, Parent, was found guilty by the jury for manslaughter, and was sentenced to sixteen years in prison. However, the Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, and it was ordered that there would be a new trial on second-degree murder charges. In the second case R. v. Thibert, the accused, Thibert, was found guilty of second-degree murder. These two cases outcomes were different because of the circumstances of the cases, and the accurate application of provocation. In the first case, the insult is severe and insulting enough for the man to act impulsively and shoot his wife, prior to this he had no real intention to harm her; the husband had lost control. Whereas in the second case of R. v Thibert, Thibert had control over his emotions and was attempting to have Sherren back away, so it was evident that he was in a stable mental state. As well Thibert had intent to harm Sherren, since the gun was not fired immediacy after the insults, it was minutes after, which indicates the situation had been evaluated by Thibert.

In my personal opinion, I do believe that Parent’s case demonstrated the necessary elements for his actions to be his defence of provocation. The insults that the wife had made to Parent and the threat she placed to “wipe him out completely” is extremely rude and offensive. She was verbally attacking his pride and self dignity, and is clear she was trying to provoke her husband. The husband was shocked at these taunts and this caused him to shoot her. Parent was still in a frantic state when he had killed his wife, so his actions were taken when he had no real self-control.

In my personal opinion, I do not believe that Thibert’s case demonstrated the necessary elements for his actions to be his defence of provocation. Even though his actions were taken out of impulse and during a period when he was not in a stable state of mind, he did have an intent to kill. As he and brought the gun and had it pointed it at Sherren prior to him taunting him, it seems as though Thibert was using the pretext of provocation to get away with second-degree murder.

This second element of provocation only applies to Parent’s case, since he acted out of impulse and brought forward a weapon upon hearing the insult. The actions he took were a result of the anger that had been provoked in him though then disrespectful, and rude comments made to him by his wife. While, in Thibert’s case he already had the weapon out before Sherren had even begun taunting him, which might suggest he had the intent too inflict harm to him prior to the verbal taunts. This would suggest that second-degree murder is more appropriate as a verdict for the case than provocation.