Law 12
Criminal Law
Ms. Ripley
1
Criminal Cases
R. v. Menard (1996), 29 O.R. (3d) 772 (Ont. C.A.) (Law in Action, Blair, p.177)
The victim was a part-time taxi driver in Montreal. On April 12, 1991, his taxi was discovered
submerged in the Madawaska River, near Arnprior, Ontario. His body was not found until June 9,
1991, when it was discovered off the side of a road just outside Arnprior. An autopsy revealed that
he had been killed by multiple stab wounds to the back. Wounds to several ribs indicated a substantial use of force.
On the same day the victim disappeared, a man noticed a taxi being driven toward the
Madawaska River. When he ran to the river, he saw the taxi sinking into the water. He turned and
saw Menard with a duffle bag and some clothing. He called the police, and Constable Nicholas of
the Ontario Provincial Police arrived at the scene. Nicholas asked Menard what had happened.
Menard replied that he had been hitchhiking and was picked up by a man named Phil who stopped
the car and told him to get out. Phil then drove the car into the river and ran away toward the
highway.
More police arrived and examined the area where the car had entered the water. They found
only one set of footprints. On top of the hill they discovered a bundle of wet clothing with stains of
blood. After the victim was found and the car was removed from the water, the bloodstains on the
driver's seat and on the floor plus the blood on the wet clothes were matched to the victim's blood.
All the blood samples were consistent with the victim's blood type, which is shared by less than 1
percent of the population. Contact staining consistent with the victim's blood type was also found on
Menard's jeans. A forensic geologist testified that soil samples taken from the area where the
victim's body was found were consistent with samples found on Menard's boots.
A jury convicted Menard of second-degree murder. His appeals to the Ontario Court of Appeal
and the Supreme Court of Canada were dismissed.
1. Categorize the Crown's evidence under the headings Eyewitness Evidence, physical Evidence,
and Expert Witness Evidence.
2. Given that the victim suffered multiple stab wounds, what valuable piece of evidence is missing
from the case summary?
3. Put yourself in the position of Menard's lawyer. How would you challenge the type of evidence
presented?
Regina v. Gilling (I997), 34 O.R. (3d) 392 (Ont. C.A.) (Law in Action, Blair, p.180)
Gilling was charged with second-degree murder for slashing the victim's throat. Gilling's father
took him to the police station where the father gave a videotaped statement that told of a
conversation he had had with his son. He said his son told him that he had slashed the victim to
ward off a sexual assault. The father also said that he was not sure when the accused arrived at his
house. At trial, the father recanted his earlier statement, denying that Gilling had admitted
committing the murder. He also stated that he was certain his son had arrived at his house the day
before the murder.
The trial judge held a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the father's earlier, videotaped
statement. The defence objected to the statement on the grounds that it was hearsay evidence.
After ruling the statement admissible, the judge informed the jury that he had carefully considered
the admissibility of the statement according to a Supreme Court ruling. He said he had found the
videotaped statement sufficiently reliable to allow it to be entered as evidence.
The accused was convicted and appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The higher court
Law 12
Criminal Law
Ms. Ripley
2
overturned the conviction, stating that the judge's remarks on the reliability of the father's
videotaped statement may have led the jury to believe that the judge thought the statement should
be regarded as true.
1. Explain why the judge found it necessary to hold a voir dire during the trial.
2. Why was the father's videotaped statement considered hearsay evidence?
3. Why did the Court of Appeal overturn the judge's verdict?