Should Lavallee Be Convicted Of Murder Or Was It Self-Defense?

681 Words3 Pages

Should Lavallee be Convicted of Murder or was it Self-Defense? R v Lavallee, [1990] 1 SCR 852, 76 CR (3d) 329 Thesis Lavallee should not be charged due to the fact that it was an act of self-defense and not murder. Profile of the Law Charter of Rights and Freedoms s. 231 subsection (7) “All murder that is not first degree murder is second degree murder” (All About Law). General Summary Angelique Lyn Lavallee, 22 (defendant) and Kevin Rust (victim) had an abusive relationship. Rust would beat and scared Lavallee to the point where she had to go to the emergency numerous amounts of times for a broken nose or cuts and scares. Yet she continued going back to him. The couple was hosting a party on the night of August 30th, 1986. Late in the night Rust had followed Lavallee into the bedroom where he began shouting obscene comments at her. Rust began slapping and pushing her then proceeded with hitting her twice on the head. Lavalle claimed that he said to her “if you don’t kill me first, ill kill you” while handing her a gun. Rust turned and started walking away when Lavallee pulled the trigger hitting Rust in the back of the …show more content…

Lavallee claimed self-defense on a case of battered women syndrome. A psychiatrist – Dr. Shane - that Lavallee started seeing defended her in the case that she felt that is she didn’t do something she would be killed that night. Lavallee was acquitted and the Crown appealed the case. Manitoba Court of Appeal as crown said that he jury ignored critical evidence. It was also brought up that the testimony given by Dr. Shane was unlawful (his testimony would influence the jury’s decision). Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal; the case was then sent to the Supreme. At the Supreme Court of Canada evidence was shown that indicated that Lavallee had been suffering this abuse for years. Lavallee was acquitted due to the fact that she had acted out of

Open Document