Article content
A Quebec Superior Court judge raised questions Wednesday about how a jury reached a unanimous decision to convict Lachine resident Véronique Manceaux of first-degree murder before he confirmed the automatic sentence she received two Saturdays ago.
On April 27, the jury that heard Manceaux’s trial at the Montreal courthouse emerged from their deliberation and announced they found her guilty of first-degree murder and of causing an indignity to 27-year-old Jimmy Méthot’s body. The victim was killed during a party at Manceaux’s home in Lachine during Labour Day weekend in 2021.
Article content
As Justice Daniel Royer noted on Wednesday, the jury heard evidence from two witnesses that Manceaux, now 38, was very high on crack cocaine when she and a minor killed Méthot. There was very little evidence of a motive behind the homicide beyond Manceaux’s irrational belief that Méthot, a man she barely knew, was a spy for her violent ex-boyfriend.
Royer heard statements from Méthot’s mother and two of his sisters and he agreed with a common suggestion from lawyers on both sides of the case that Manceaux be sentenced to three years for placing the victim’s body in a barrel, pouring vinegar and baking soda on it and keeping it in her garage for days.
A sentence for a first-degree murder conviction comes with an automatic life sentence with a period of parole ineligibility fixed at 25 years. Royer was left to merely make the sentence official during Wednesday’s hearing, but he made comments that called into question the jury’s verdict. Normally, at this stage of a trial, judges praise the jury system as being the pinnacle of Canada’s justice system. Royer’s comments deviated far from that.
Article content
“The evidence administered during the trial did not allow to know which of Mrs. Manceaux’s actions that the jury retained, beyond a reasonable doubt, to reach this verdict,” Royer said, adding it appears the jury didn’t follow his final instructions while they were deliberating.
As part of his instructions, the judge told the jury it had to be convinced Manceaux’s actions were planned and premeditated or that she participated in confining the victim while he was assaulted, stabbed and forced to drink a flammable liquid.
“It is therefore impossible to for the court to quantify her conduct and predict the possible impact on her chances of rehabilitation. Mrs. Manceaux had no prior convictions before she participated in this sordid murder during a night where she was heavily intoxicated on crack, according to two witnesses. The motive invoked by (the prosecution) supports the theory of a confrontation with Mr. Méthot, but it doesn’t support an intention and even less a premeditation to kill.”
On Dec. 3, 2022, the minor pleaded guilty to first-degree murder after he admitted that he played a role in Méthot’s death, including how he prevented the young man from fleeing from Manceaux’s home.
“Regarding the confinement, it rested only on the testimony from Mrs. Manceaux’s preliminary inquiry from an accomplice (the minor) who pleaded guilty to the first-degree murder of Mr. Méthot in youth court,” Royer said. “This testimony had to be deposited into evidence because the witness claimed, under oath before the jury, that he could not remember anything of the events to a point where he was cited for contempt of court.”
The youth is scheduled to have a trial on the contempt charge later this week.
Recommended from Editorial
Share this article in your social network