Help

Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

R. v. McIntyre, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 480

 

Marven McIntyre                                                                              Appellant

 

v.

 

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                               Respondent

 

Indexed as:  R. v. McIntyre

 

File No.:  23673.

 

1994:  June 14.

 


Present:  Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

 

on appeal from the court of appeal for new brunswick

 

                   Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights  ‑‑ Fundamental justice ‑‑ Right to silence ‑‑ Accused arrested in connection with murder of nun  ‑‑ Undercover police officer placed in accused's cell to obtain statement but without success ‑‑ Accused later making inculpatory statements to undercover police officers after being released ‑‑ Whether accused's right to remain silent infringed -- If so, whether statements admissible ‑‑ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , ss. 7 , 24(2) .

 

Cases Cited

 

                   Referred to: R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; R. v. Broyles, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 595.

 

Statutes and Regulations Cited

 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , ss. 7 , 24(2) .

 

                   APPEAL from a judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal (1993), 135 N.B.R. (2d) 266, 344 A.P.R. 266, dismissing the accused's appeal from his conviction for second degree murder.  Appeal dismissed.

 

                   Anne Dugas‑Horsman, for the appellant.

 

                   Graham J. Sleeth, Q.C., for the respondent.

 

                   English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by

 

                   Gonthier J. ‑‑ The appellant argues that his statements made to undercover police officers after he had been released but while he was still the subject of a murder charge are inadmissible under ss. 7  and 24(2)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .  We share the view of the majority that the accused was not detained within the meaning of Hebert and Broyles.  Furthermore, the tricks used by the police were not likely to shock the community or cause the accused's statements not to be free and voluntary.  The appeal is dismissed.

 

                   Judgment accordingly.

 

                   Solicitors for the appellant:  Fowler & Fowler, Moncton.

 

                   Solicitor for the respondent:  The Department of Justice, Fredericton.

 

Lexum

For 20 years now, the Lexum site has been the main public source for Supreme Court decisions.


>

Decisia

 

Efficient access to your decisions

Decisia is an online service for courts, boards and tribunals aiming to provide easy and professional access to their decisions from their own website.

Learn More