Julian Jackson Mr. Sean DeZilva CLU3M 28 April 2024 Opinionated Criminal Law Essay on the Ruling of R. v. Thibert R v. Thibert: A case of second-degree murder. Norman Eugene Thibert, the accused. After finding out about an ongoing affair in his relationship. This created a big shift in his life. Which ultimately leads to the murder of his wife’s lover. But the big question that arises is if this murder was intentional or unintentional, and if the murder was due to him being provoked. Which could reduce his charge to manslaughter. The trial judge left the defence of provocation with the jury, but in his charge didn't instruct the jury that the Crown had the onus of disproving provocation beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused was found guilty of second-degree murder. The Court …show more content…
My stance is in alignment with the Supreme Court of Canada in that the accused is guilty of second-degree murder. Deemed he wasn't provoked, he believed that although he didn't have a full intent to kill, he did have a premeditated intent to kill in a potential scenario had he crossed paths with the wife’s lover. Then lastly the defence of provocation and an “ordinary person”. How his intent would be proven in the specific interaction before the murder? A key variable which could have concurred with the outcome of the murder was the gun being just a bluff. The accused’s wife genuinely believed the gun was unloaded, as throughout their marriage, that was usually the case. But she was wrong, too. The accused, while furious, one night retrieved the rifle from the house and moved it to the garage. Followed by him testifying that he had thought about killing the victim, his wife, or himself. Which shows he had intent to kill someone, including the victim, as a potential target before the killing. The next morning, he was then keen on talking to his wife and persuading her to come home, followed by him making multiple phone calls to
The victim, John Kondejewski, a sergeant in the military as well as battle school instructor, was killed on May 15th, 1997 in Brandon Manitoba by the defendant, his wife, Kimberley Kondejewski, in the bedroom of their home (Sheehy 88). The couple was married for over 17 years before the proceeding occurred. Kimberly shot her husband three times that Thursday night; first shot to the chest, second and third shot were closer range, which led the police to charge her with first-degree murder (Sheehy 115). However, she also tried to end her life, fortunately she was only wounded. She even had composed a suicide note addressed to their children, Jennifer and Christopher. The judge assigned to the case was Justice Rodney H
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you for your attention today. [Slide #2] I would like to assert that separation is not the end of a relationship. Divorce is not the end of a relationship. Even an arrest is not the end of a relationship. Only death is the end of a relationship. In the case of defendant Donna Osborn, her insistence that ‘“one way or another I’ll be free,”’ as told in the testimony of her friend Jack Mathews and repeated in many others’, indicates that despite the lack of planning, the defendant had the full intent to kill her husband, Clinton Osborn.
Code Ann., Crim. sec. 2-201 (a) (1) 2014. Lt. Manion’s actions fall into this description based on the series of events that led up to the murder of Mr. Quill. Lt. Manion willfully admits that he shot Mr. Quill, but defends that he was warranted in doing so because he suffered from an “irresistible impulse.” From Lt. Manion’s testimony, he clearly understands the criminality of his actions, however; he argues that his actions were out of his control because they resulted from him seeing the trauma his wife suffered. In his testimony, he describes to the court how he purposefully went into his trailer to obtain the gun that was used to kill Mr. Quill before traveling to the tavern to confront the victim, which shows premeditation and intent to commit murder. The defense would have a difficult time convincing the jury that Lt. Manion was incapable of controlling his actions since his actions were thought out and deliberate, which was displayed in his testimony when asked by his defense attorney why he brought the gun, he said “I knew I had to go to Quill’s bar and I thought I might need it” (Anatomy of a Murder
Schmalleleger, F. (2002). Criminal Law Today: An Introduction with capstone cases. (2nd edition) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
R N Howie and P A Johnson, Annotated Criminal Legislation NSW, 2011-2102, (Lexis Nexis Butterworths 2012) 17769-1774
R. v. Lavallee was a case held in 1990 that sent waves through the legal community. The defendant, Lyn Lavallee was in a relationship with her partner, Kevin Rust, in which he would abuse her both mentally and physically. On the night of the incident, Lyn and her husband got into a fight, her husband pulled out a gun and told her if she didn’t kill him now he’d be coming for her later. When leaving the room, Lyn shot Kevin in the back of the head killing him instantly. She was convicted of murder, but when brought before the Manitoba Court, she was acquitted of the charges. An appeal was made to the Manitoba court of Appeal on the grounds that expert testimony should not be admitted as evidence in the courts. They argued that the jury was perfectly
To conclude, despite all the possibilities and other theories of Mrs. Maloney committing the crime out of anger or severe frustration towards Mr. Maloney, there is no credible way to prove it. Mrs. Maloney simply killed her husband as a result of mental anguish, self defense and trauma inflicted upon her. Mrs. Maloney did not plan to kill her husband. She was simply a victim of her situation and could not control her actions. Mrs. Maloney should not be spending time in jail, but safe at home grieving the loss of her husband.
...Streeter 275. Courtesy of the Tarlton Law Library, Jamail Center for Legal Research, The University of Texas at Austin, 2013. Web. 3 February 2014.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Jost, Kenneth. "The Federal Judiciary." CQ Researcher 8.10 (1998). CQ Researcher. SAGE Publications. Web. 01 Mar. 2011. .
Harr, S. J., Hess, K. M., & Orthmann, C. H. (2012). Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice
Lippman, M. (2012). Contemporary Criminal Law Concepts, Cases and Controversies (3rd ed.). [Vitalsouce Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from http://online.vitalsource.com/books/9781452277660/5/3
In the case of R v Maloney (1985), the defendant and the Victim (stepfather of the defendant), were drunk when they decided to have a contest of who can load and fire a gun more quickly. The defendant shot the victim without aiming as the victim taunted the defendant to fire the gun. Lord Bridge held ‘Foresight of consequences as an element bearing on the issue of intention in murder... belongs, not to the substantive law but the law of evidence’ (Molan, 2001: 95), oblique intent here is held ...
Legal Information Institute. (2010, August 9). Retrieved February 17, 2012, from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal_law