Jury can’t agree on verdict in murder trial
A jury deliberating in a murder case at the Montreal courthouse since Thursday informed the presiding judge in the trial on Monday that they are having difficulty reaching a verdict.
On Monday morning, Superior Court Justice Pierre Labrie received an envelope from the jury — composed of seven women and five men — informing him that after three full days of deliberation, they cannot reach a unanimous decision in the second-degree murder trial of Jonathan Mahautière.
The 21-year-old admitted he strangled his 17-year-old girlfriend, Gabrielle Dufresne-Élie, to death on June 7, 2014. On March 29, he testified that he and the victim agreed to meet at the Motel Chablis, in eastern Montreal, where they had sex. He told the jury he strangled her after she told him she no longer wanted to see him because he had to “solve his problems.” He also testified that he has a history of being impulsive, hyperactive and that he had to take medication, including Ritalin and Risperdal (antipsychotic medication), from the time he was five. He quit taking the medication at age 14.
In closing arguments made last week, his defence lawyer, Clemente Monterosso, asked the jury to find Mahautière guilty of manslaughter and not second-degree murder, which comes with an automatic life sentence if he is convicted on that charge. Monterosso highlighted the health problems the accused had faced in the past and said Mahautière had been expelled from schools several times because he became violent with teachers and fellow students. The defence argues that Mahautière acted impulsively when he strangled Dufresne-Élie and therefore did not form the intent to kill her, which is required in a second-degree murder conviction.
The couple had been together for two years before Dufresne-Élie was killed. The jury learned that she sent Mahautière Facebook messages informing him that she wanted to end the relationship.
The note sent to Labrie Monday morning did not clarify what their disagreement involves, but the jury asked the judge for advice on how to deal with the impasse. The judge read them a standard instruction asking them to try
I ask you to continue your efforts. Continue your debates.
again. He also recommended that the 12 jurors take an early lunch break before they resume things Monday afternoon.
“I ask you to continue your efforts. Continue your debates,” Labrie said. “But during your lunch, clear your minds before you resume (deliberations).”
The jury was unable to reach a decision by the end of the day on Monday. Instead, later in the afternoon, the jury sent another question asking Labrie if they could consider statements Mahautière made to two different mental health experts as evidence. The statements were quoted in two reports filed by the defence. Labrie clarified that the statements could indeed be considered as evidence.
The jury will resume it deliberation on Tuesday.