No psychiatric evaluation for Karl-Emmanuel Villeneuve

Pas d'évaluation psychiatrique pour Karl-Emmanuel Villeneuve

Karl-Emmanuel Villeneuve will not be subject to psychiatric examination, at least for the moment, to verify his or her criminal responsibility at the time when he would have murdered Alexandre Larouche, on July 29, 2018.

Judge Paul Guimond, of the Court of Quebec released its decision Friday morning at the Palais de justice de Chicoutimi. A judgment clear and unambiguous.

The magistrate took a few days to study the request of Me Michael Bourget, of the Crown, who had this examination with a psychiatrist to learn more about the mental state of Villeneuve on the day he committed the first degree murder of Larouche.

The victim of this case has been fired at close range in a house in the rue Johanna, to Chicoutimi-Nord. The murderer would have shot his victim from behind before coming back to the young Larouche to pull it a second time, according to the information circulating.

In his decision, the judge Guimond does not retain the arguments of the public ministry, which was based on a similar case, to obtain this psychiatric examination.

“Stop Benoit does not apply, because in this case, the accused had admitted to having shot the victim. Here this is not the case. There is no admission on the part of the defense, ” notes the judge.

“In addition, in the case that concerns us, the defence has not argued that it intended to rely on insanity as a defence to offer, in a prospective trial, whereas in the case of Benoit, the defense had been informed in advance that the defence of mental health would be invoked,” said the judge Guimond.

It does not grant the request at this stage of the judicial proceedings in order not to remove the grounds of defence to the accused to 20 years.

For his part, Me Bourget has taken note of the decision of the magistrate.

“He has found it in its discretion. In article 72, it is stated that the judge may, and not the judge must. So we have not had gain of cause. Our request was based primarily on two medical reports. Obviously, the doctor wonders about the mental state of the accused. We think we have the sufficient reasons, in our query, but this is not the conclusion of the judge. “

The public prosecutor may submit a new query at another time during the judicial proceedings.

“The door does not seem to be closed, because it ended its decision by saying “at this stage”. We will not know immediately if he is not criminally responsible. It will have to wait to see if the defense will want to take the first step “, note Me Bourget.

In defence, Jean-Marc Fradette hoped this decision on the part of the magistrate.

“It is the victory of the great principles of right. The courts come to reiterate that the claim of the Crown was inappropriate, that it contravened the right to silence and that she might have been able to prevent the accused from presenting other kinds of defense. “

“At this stage, the Crown has not done an iota of evidence on the actus reus, that is to say, on the fact that the accused has committed the crime or not. This is premature, on the side of the Crown, and the surplus that violates the rules of fundamental justice recognized by the canadian Charter of rights, ” says Me Fradette.

The latter considers that the decision of the judge Guimond demonstrates that the presumption of innocence is important, that the right to silence and the right to choose his defence, are of the primordial elements.

“We will choose our defense in the proper time. The Crown wanted to put us in the throat the kind of defense that we should do. If we decide to make a defence of insanity, free is our choice, but at this stage we are not there. Prove first that he is guilty of a crime. Why should we wonder if his mental condition was correct at the time of the offences, while it is claimed that there may be not commit the offence? It was premature, ” added Me Fradette.

The latter is also satisfied with the decision of the judge Guimond, because he claims that the Crown would have been able to obtain information that it does not, in passing by the doctor to have them.


The Chicoutimien Karl-Emmanuel Villeneuve will undergo a preliminary inquiry that from 3 to 7 December, which brings his lawyer, Me Jean-Marc Fradette, to consider the possibility to apply to a judge of the superior Court of Quebec to hear the survey released over the coming days.

I Fradette, defence, and Me Michael Bourget, the office of the Director of criminal and penal prosecutions (DPCP), have met on Friday afternoon, the coordinating judge Richard P. Daoust, of the Court of Québec, in order to determine the date of this judicial procedure, in order to better understand and to properly assess the evidence held by the Crown.

“We have learned that the sequence of the 22 to the 26 of October is no longer available. We are again at the beginning of the month of December. This means that my client will have to wait for almost two more months in prison before being eligible for a preliminary inquiry “, indicates to Me Fradette.

“I find it very far because it pushes back the date for the release of my client. I am studying the possibility of asking the superior Court of Québec to take the survey released quickly. I know that it’s going to be more difficult to convince the court to give my client’s release, given that my client is accused of first-degree murder, ” said the criminalist.

You should know that I Fradette would have wanted to demonstrate to the court that the Crown’s evidence is not as probative as it seems, even if Villeneuve would have made a confession to investigators during the interrogation.

Questioned about the relevance of these confessions, the criminal defence lawyer claims even today that he is not allegations of a confession.

“And, moreover, at the time when it was made, it is the same day where there has been the filing of a request for declaring him unfit, what has been done a few days later. Incapacity at the time of the court appearance and at the time of reporting, that is another topic. And a statement made by an incapable person at the time of the interrogation, and not the facts, it is clearly an interview that would be invalid in law, ” adds Me Fradette.

Share Button