In Canada, few criminal charges carry as much weight as murder. Beyond the severe penalties, these charges carry the highest level of stigma in the justice system. At the core of every murder prosecution lies the issue of intent, what the accused was thinking or intending at the time of the alleged act.
Intent is not simply about why someone acted, but whether they knowingly or deliberately caused death or serious bodily harm likely to result in death. This distinction is critical because it separates murder from other forms of homicide, such as manslaughter. It also determines whether a charge falls under first-degree or second-degree murder.
For anyone accused, securing a skilled murder defence lawyer is essential. A lawyer’s role is to carefully examine how the Crown intends to prove intent, whether the evidence meets the high standard of proof required, and what defences may be available.
What Intent Means in Canadian Criminal Law
Legal Definition Of Intent
Under section 229 of the Criminal Code of Canada, a person commits murder when they:
- Mean to cause the death of another person, or
- Mean to cause bodily harm, they know is likely to cause death, and act without concern for whether death occurs.
This intent, often called mens rea, must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not enough that death occurred; the Crown must prove that the accused had the necessary state of mind.
First-Degree Vs. Second-Degree Murder
The difference between first- and second-degree murder turns largely on the quality of intent.
- First-degree murder requires that the act was both planned and deliberate, or occurred under certain conditions listed in section 231 of the Code (for example, killing a peace officer or committing murder during a sexual assault).
- Second-degree murder covers intentional killings that lack planning or deliberation. The accused still must have meant to cause death or serious harm, but without evidence of premeditation.
How Courts Interpret Intent
Canadian courts have consistently required proof of subjective foresight of death for murder convictions. In R. v. Martineau (1990), the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the old “constructive murder” rule, finding it unconstitutional to convict someone of murder without proving they actually foresaw death as a result of their actions. This principle reinforces that murder requires the highest level of intent.
Courts have also confirmed that intent can transfer. In Droste v. R., the Supreme Court ruled that if someone intends to kill one person but another dies instead, the intent still applies. These decisions shape how defence lawyers argue intent in court and how the Crown must frame its case.
How The Crown Proves Intent
A murder defence lawyer knows that proving intent is one of the hardest tasks the Crown faces. Prosecutors may rely on:
- Direct evidence, such as statements or confessions.
- Circumstantial evidence, such as the weapon used, the injuries inflicted, or actions before and after the event.
- Recklessness and knowledge, where the accused knew their conduct was likely to cause death but acted anyway.
- Transferred intent, where the intended victim was not the person killed.
The prosecution must show more than the fact of death; they must establish that the accused had the mental element required under section 229.
Defences That Challenge Intent
Because intent is central, many legal defences focus on disproving it. An experienced murder defence lawyer may explore:
- Lack of intent or mistake of fact: showing that the accused’s perception of events was different and negates intent.
- Mental disorder or incapacity: if the accused could not appreciate their actions or understand they were wrong, intent may not exist.
- Intoxication: in rare cases of extreme intoxication, intent may not be proven. However, Canadian law under section 33.1 sets strict limits on this defence.
- Accident: when a death occurs without foresight or recklessness.
- Challenging Crown evidence: questioning witness testimony, forensics, or timelines that the Crown uses to prove state of mind.
Sentencing And The Role Of Intent
Both first- and second-degree murder carry mandatory life sentences under the Criminal Code, but intent influences parole eligibility.
- First-degree murder: parole eligibility after 25 years.
- Second-degree murder: eligibility set by the judge, between 10 and 25 years.
The presence or absence of planning, deliberation, and specific intent guides where on this scale a case falls.
Why Early Legal Representation Matters
Facing a murder charge in Edmonton or anywhere in Alberta requires immediate legal support. A knowledgeable murder defence lawyer can:
- Preserve evidence that speaks to intent.
- Arrange expert assessments on mental state or capacity.
- Develop legal strategies to dispute the Crown’s theory.
- Negotiate where appropriate to reduce charges or minimize penalties.
Intent can be difficult for the Crown to prove, but it can also be difficult to disprove without a proper legal defence. That is why engaging an experienced lawyer early in the process is critical.
About Us
Daryl Royer is a criminal defence lawyer in Edmonton who provides skilled representation in serious cases, including murder, homicide, manslaughter, and other complex criminal matters. With a focus on protecting the rights of the accused and ensuring fair treatment under Canadian law, Daryl Royer brings deep courtroom experience to every case.
If you are facing murder charges and need a skilled murder defence lawyer in Edmonton, contact us today to discuss your case and protect your future.