Second-Degree Murder Prosecutions
Second-Degree Murder Prosecutions in Canada
Second-degree murder is a serious criminal offence under s. 235 of the Criminal Code of Canada, punishable by life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 10–25 years depending on circumstances.
Unlike first-degree murder, which generally requires planning and deliberation, second-degree murder is intentional killing without premeditation, or killing during the commission of certain offences without intent to kill.
1. Legal Framework
Elements of Second-Degree Murder
Actus Reus – The accused committed an unlawful killing.
Causation – The accused’s actions caused the death.
Mens Rea – The accused intended to cause death or bodily harm likely to cause death, but the act was not planned or premeditated.
Defences – Self-defence, provocation (may reduce to manslaughter), mental disorder, or mistake of fact.
Sentencing
Life imprisonment is mandatory.
Parole eligibility is generally 10–25 years, determined based on aggravating or mitigating circumstances (s.745(1) Criminal Code).
2. Case Law on Second-Degree Murder
Case 1: R. v. Martineau (1990, SCC)
Facts:
The accused shot and killed a liquor store clerk during a robbery. He claimed he did not intend to kill anyone.
Holding:
SCC held that intent to cause death or bodily harm that is likely to result in death satisfies second-degree murder, even without planning.
Reckless disregard for human life can be sufficient for conviction.
Impact:
Clarified the mens rea standard for second-degree murder.
Distinguished between reckless intent and premeditation.
Case 2: R. v. Nette (2001, SCC)
Facts:
Accused was charged with second-degree murder after strangling a woman during a robbery. Evidence linking him to the actual killing was circumstantial.
Holding:
SCC confirmed that the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused caused death and intended death or bodily harm.
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt if logical inference is reasonable.
Impact:
Reaffirmed probabilistic approach for circumstantial evidence in murder prosecutions.
Important for cases with no direct witnesses.
Case 3: R. v. Généreux (1992, SCC)
Facts:
Accused stabbed a man during a bar fight, resulting in death. He argued the killing was unintentional.
Holding:
SCC held that intent to cause bodily harm sufficient to cause death meets the mens rea for second-degree murder.
Even without planning, intentional bodily harm that is objectively likely to cause death can sustain conviction.
Impact:
Expanded the scope of second-degree murder to intentional harm resulting in death.
Reinforced that provocation or heat-of-passion does not automatically reduce liability.
Case 4: R. v. Hundal (1993, SCC)
Facts:
Accused caused a fatal car accident by driving dangerously. Charged with second-degree murder.
Holding:
SCC emphasized that criminal negligence resulting in death is manslaughter, not second-degree murder, because second-degree murder requires subjective intent.
Impact:
Clarified distinction between murder and manslaughter.
Intent remains the key factor for second-degree murder.
Case 5: R. v. Latimer (2001, SCC)
Facts:
Accused killed his severely disabled daughter, claiming mercy motives. Charged with second-degree murder.
Holding:
SCC confirmed that mercy killings do not constitute a defence for second-degree murder, as intent to kill remains central.
Sentencing took aggravating and mitigating factors into account but did not reduce conviction to manslaughter.
Impact:
Emphasized strict interpretation of mens rea, regardless of motive.
Courts consider context in sentencing but cannot ignore intent.
Case 6: R. v. Smith (1992, SCC)
Facts:
Accused killed his partner during a domestic dispute. Claimed provocation reduced the act to manslaughter.
Holding:
SCC held that provocation may reduce first-degree murder but not automatically second-degree murder unless it meets statutory criteria.
Conviction upheld for second-degree murder based on intent.
Impact:
Defined limits of provocation in reducing culpability.
Ensures second-degree murder retains its broad application for intentional killings.
3. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Facts | Key Legal Principle | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| R. v. Martineau (1990) | Killing during robbery | Mens rea: intent or reckless disregard | Clarified intent standard |
| R. v. Nette (2001) | Strangulation during robbery | Circumstantial evidence sufficient | Probabilistic approach to guilt |
| R. v. Généreux (1992) | Stabbing in bar fight | Intentional harm causing death | Broadened second-degree scope |
| R. v. Hundal (1993) | Fatal car accident | Distinguishes manslaughter from murder | Subjective intent required |
| R. v. Latimer (2001) | Mercy killing | Motive irrelevant to mens rea | Sentencing context considered |
| R. v. Smith (1992) | Domestic dispute | Provocation limited | Second-degree murder upheld |
4. Key Observations on Second-Degree Murder Prosecutions
Mens Rea Is Critical – Intent to kill or cause bodily harm likely to result in death is the foundation.
Planning Not Required – Distinguishes second-degree from first-degree murder.
Evidence Standard – Circumstantial or direct evidence must prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
Defences Are Narrow – Provocation, self-defence, or mercy motives rarely reduce charges to manslaughter unless clearly meeting statutory criteria.
Sentencing Discretion – Life imprisonment is mandatory, but parole eligibility can vary based on aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
5. Conclusion
Second-degree murder prosecutions in Canada focus on:
Intentional killing without premeditation
Objective assessment of the likelihood of death resulting from intentional harm
Careful distinction from manslaughter
Cases like Martineau, Nette, Généreux, Hundal, Latimer, and Smith demonstrate that Canadian courts carefully analyze mens rea, evidence, and context, ensuring that justice is served while maintaining clear statutory standards.
RELATED Blog
comments