Skip to main content

An alcoholic's claim that he was too drunk to know what he was doing when he stabbed his girlfriend to death was speedily rejected by a Toronto jury yesterday.

Martin Jensen, 36, had been granted the rare opportunity to place a defence of intoxication before an Ontario Superior Court jury when Mr. Justice Edward Then ruled last week that a Criminal Code ban on this defence is unconstitutional.

Defence lawyer Greg Lafontaine argued that his client was "no more than a zombie, a sleepwalker, a robot" after consuming the equivalent of 35 beers during the afternoon and evening of Aug. 29, 1998.

Story continues below advertisement

But jurors did not buy it. After deliberating for just five hours, they declared Mr. Jensen guilty of second-degree murder in the death of 38-year-old Lynda Vickery, who was stabbed 16 times as she lay in her bed.

However, Judge Then's ruling on the intoxication defence will embolden defence lawyers to try using it for other clients accused of committing violent crimes while drunk or under the influence of drugs, Crown attorney Phil Enright said outside court yesterday.

The federal government barred this defence in crimes of violence in 1995, thumbing its nose at a Supreme Court of Canada ruling a year earlier that said extreme intoxication was a viable defence in some circumstances.

Judge Then said the amendment to section 33.1 of the Criminal Code violated the principles of fundamental justice and an accused person's right to a fair trial.

In four court rulings since section 33.1 became law, two judges have declared the section unconstitutional and two have had no problem with it, Mr. Enright said.

Judge Then is the highest ranking judge to have pronounced on the issue.

Mr. Enright's view, which was apparently shared by the jury, is that "intentional killing is murder regardless of whether it is committed by a sober, calculating individual or by . . . a drunk."

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter