Appeal Of The Queen V. Danny Lalumiere Case

The case prosecuted under the court of Appeal of Ontario, Her Majesty the Queen v Danny Lalumiere, in 2011, was intended to appeal the conviction of counseling to commit murder. The appellant argued that the life sentence was not appropriate and was outside the range of sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offenses. This is an example of a case where legal guilt was used to provide a conviction. The conviction of the appellant was based on the testimony of a psychiatrist doctor, Dr. Pallandi, who provided a profile of the accused and concluded that the appellant was pathologically predisposed to commit an offense. The appellate court ruled against the Crown’s decision at the trial, stating that the appellant lacked moral culpability for his offenses and therefore the sentence was not deserved. The decision of the appellate court was based on factual guilt of the appellant, which overruled the concept of legal guilt used at his original sentencing. The decision of the Crown was based on the presumption of guilt based on the individual’s social behavior, which made his conviction highly unusual ("R. v. Lalumiere, 2011 ONCA 826 (CanLII)", 2011).

There is a wide range of ways to interpret a case before arriving at the final verdict. In most situations, the best way is to prove the guilt of an accused. The facts presented before the court are vital to prove that a criminal act occurred. A determination should be made in a case to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. At times it is the full discretion of the judge to make a decision, which can deviate from the facts of the case. Guilt can either be determined by factual guilt or legal