Preview

R. V. Martineau Case Brief

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
633 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
R. V. Martineau Case Brief
Case Brief
By: Ashley Tam

R. v. Martineau (1991), 58 C.C.C. (3d) 353 (S.C.C.)

Facts: The appellant, Martineau, was convicted of second-degree murder under s. 213(a) and (d) of the Criminal Code but the decision was overturned by the Alberta Court of Appeal who concluded that s. 213(a) violated ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and could no longer be in effect. The issue was brought before the Supreme Court of Canada whether or not the appeal court was correct in overturning the decision made at trial. On February 7, 1985, Patrick Tremblay and 15 year-old Martineau robbed a trailer and proceeded to kill the owners of the trailer, the McLeans. Evidence shows that Mr. McLean was shot after receiving a beating and Mrs. McLean was shot with a blanket over her head. During the shooting of Mrs. McLean, evidence was found that Martineau said “Lady, say your prayers”. Tremblay and Martineau left the McLeans in the bathroom of the trailer, drove Mr. McLean’s car to the Grand Prairie, and abandoned it.

Legal Issue(s): Does s. 213(a) and (d) of the Criminal Code violate ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and therefore, no longer be in effect?

Held: The appellant was not convicted of second-degree murder under s. 213(a) and (d) of the Criminal Code as it violated ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This decision was made by the Alberta Court of Appeal and held by the Supreme Court of Canada

Ratio Decidendi: (Lamer, J. and Dickson, J.) Section 213(a) and (d) of the Criminal Code defines culpable homicide as murder where a person causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a range of listed offences, whether or not the person means to cause death or whether or not he or she knows that death is likely to ensue. Section 213(a) of the Criminal Code violated both ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter:
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and



Cited: Blair, Annice, Kathleen Ryan Elliott, Bonnie Manning, and Marcus Mossuto. "A Legal Handbook: Methods of Legal Inquiry." Canadian and International Law. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2004. 16, 39. Print. "R. v. Martineau, 1988 ABCA 274 (CanLII)." CanLII. N.p., 30 Aug. 1988. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. <www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/1988/1988abca274/1988abca274.html>.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Case Brief - R. v. Hufsky

    • 691 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Spot check was for the purposes of checking licenses, insurance, mechanical fitness of cars sobriety of the drivers.…

    • 691 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Case Analysis

    • 1841 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Bibliography: 1. Kerr, Margaret, JoAnn Kurtz, and Olivo Laurence M.Canadian Tort Law. 3rd. Canada: Thomson Reuters, 2009. Print.…

    • 1841 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    References: 1.Dyzenhaus, David. Law and Morality: Readings in Legal Philosophy. On Liberty (1859). pg. 309. University of Toronto Press. 20072. Dyzenhaus, David. Law and Morality: Readings in Legal Philosophy. On Liberty (1859). pg. 314. University of Toronto Press. 20073.Judgements of the Supreme Court of Canada. http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/. R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571, 2003 SCC 74. Retrieved June 16th, 20084.Judgements of the Supreme Court of Canada. http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/. R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571, 2003 SCC 74. pg 34. Retrieved June 16th, 20085.United Nations: Office on Drugs and Crime. http://www.unodc.org/enl/showDocument.do?lng=fr&language=FRE&cmd=add&country=THA&node=docs&documentUid=699&pageNum=2 . Narcotics Control Act. Retrived June 16th, 20086.Judgements of the Supreme Court of Canada. http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/. R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571, 2003 SCC 74. pg 28. Retrieved June 16th, 20087.Dyzenhaus, David. Law and Morality: Readings in Legal Philosophy. R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571. pg. 327. University of Toronto Press. 20078.Dyzenhaus, David. Law and Morality: Readings in Legal Philosophy. R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571. pg. 327. University of Toronto Press. 20079.Dyzenhaus, David. Law and Morality: Readings in Legal Philosophy. Constitution Act. pg. 1057. University of Toronto Press. 200710.Dyzenhaus, David. Law and Morality: Readings in Legal Philosophy. R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571. pg. 332. University of Toronto Press. 200711.Dyzenhaus, David. Law and Morality: Readings in Legal Philosophy. R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571. pg. 333-334. University of Toronto Press. 200712.Dyzenhaus, David. Law and Morality: Readings in Legal Philosophy. R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571. pg. 333. University of Toronto Press. 200713.Judgements of the Supreme Court of Canada. http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/. R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571, 2003 SCC 74. pg 77. Retrieved June 16th, 200814.Dyzenhaus, David. Law and Morality: Readings in Legal Philosophy. R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571. pg. 334. University of Toronto Press. 200715.Dyzenhaus, David. Law and Morality: Readings in Legal Philosophy. R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571. pg. 334. University of Toronto Press. 200716.Judgements of the Supreme Court of Canada. http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/. R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571, 2003 SCC 74. pg 79. Retrieved June 16th, 200817.Judgements of the Supreme Court of Canada. http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/. R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571, 2003 SCC 74. pg 11. Retrieved June 16th, 2008…

    • 2441 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    Earl Jones Ponzi Scheme

    • 1183 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Andrew, C. B. (2010). Canada update-highlights of major legal news and significant court cases from january 2010 through april 2010. Law and Business Review of the Americas, 16(3), 603-612. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/759759421?accountid=3455…

    • 1183 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Case Brief

    • 7225 Words
    • 24 Pages

    NOTICE: [***1] THESE ARE NOT OFFICIAL HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI AND ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT. PLEASE REVIEW THE CASE IN FULL.…

    • 7225 Words
    • 24 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    PHL 612: Philosophy of Law

    • 5890 Words
    • 24 Pages

    (13) R. v. Butler [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452 (Supreme Court of Canada), 1992 CanLII 124 (SCC).…

    • 5890 Words
    • 24 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Next, The Ontario Human Rights Code introduced in in 1962 was policy introduced to Ontario by the Federal Government of Canada to…

    • 1316 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    Cited: Canada Classic Edition. Timeline of the Truscott Case. 25 November 2013. 26 August 2007…

    • 1005 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    In Canada, the Criminal Code “gives the federal Minister of Justice the power to review a…

    • 1504 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    The opposing parties appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada are; Ruth Schaeffer, Evelyn Minty, Diane Pinder, and Ian Scot. In this situation, Ruth Schaeffer happens to be the biological mother of Mr. Schaeffer. Diane Pinder is the sister of the now deceased Minty and Evelyn Minty is the biological mother of one of the slain males. (Doug Minty). What both families have in common is a male member from both sides was shot and killed by police and the officers involved consulted lawyers before writing producing notes detailing what had transpired. Minty was a developmentally delayed male and Schaeffer was a schizophrenic. The Director of Special Investigations in this tragic situation, Ian Scott, received…

    • 1893 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    landmark case

    • 643 Words
    • 3 Pages

    This is a charter case because the Canadian charter of Rights and Freedoms states every citizen’s rights and freedoms and in this case, Mr. Feeney's rights against unreasonable search and seizure were infringed upon. Mr. Feeney was unreasonably searched; therefore this violated his guaranteed rights under section 8 it is evident that Mr. Feeney's rights were violated because during the murder investigation, the police had trespassed onto the suspect’s property without any valid search warrant. Under section 8 of the Charter it clearly states that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. Because the police did not have a search warrant while entering his house they infringed his rights by forcing themselves into the house and unlawfully detaining possessions that belonged to Mr. Feeney. Feeney was detained immediately after being woken up by the officers, he had not…

    • 643 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    BRANDENBURG brief

    • 331 Words
    • 1 Page

    The appellant was convicted by the Ohio criminal syndicalism for statue Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 2923.13. The appellant challenged the constitutionalism of his conviction in intermediate appellate court of Ohio, but the affirmed his conviction. The supreme court of Ohio dismissed his appeal.…

    • 331 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Ring Vs Arizona Case Study

    • 1401 Words
    • 6 Pages

    On November 28, 1994, The body of an armored van driver was found dead inside the vehicle. Also, there was more than $800,000 missing from the van leading police to believe that this was a robbery and homicide case. There were no witnesses to the crime except a local bystander who stated that two vehicles, a van and a red truck were speeding down the road earlier that day and had neglected to stop at the intersection where there is a stop sign posted.…

    • 1401 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    mos 3384

    • 8329 Words
    • 33 Pages

    - Section 52 (1) of the constitution proclaims that: The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect…

    • 8329 Words
    • 33 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Landmark Cases

    • 770 Words
    • 4 Pages

    This is a charter case because the Canadian charter of Rights and Freedoms states every citizens rights and freedoms and in this case, Mr. Feeney's rights against unreasonable search and seizure were infringed upon. Mr. Feeney was unreasonably searched, therefore this violated his guaranteed rights under section 8 which states everyone has the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure, because the police did not have a search warrant while entering his house they infringed his rights by forcing themselves into the house and unlawfully detaining possessions that belonged to Mr. Feeney. Also, section 24(2) of the Charter had been taken into consideration which states any evidence received infringing any rights and freedoms listed in the Charter will be excluded. Since the police entered the accused's house wrongfully the evidence they collected from the premises should be dismissed because of the error on the police's part.…

    • 770 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays