R v Machekequonabe (1897), 28 OR 309, 2 CCC 138, was a decision of the Divisional Court of the Supreme Court of Ontario.
Machekequonabe, the accused, was an Anishinaabe man who shot and killed someone he believed to be a wendigo. [1] In fact, the man was his foster father. [2]
Machekequonabe was convicted of manslaughter at first instance: the trial judge rejected his alleged defences of lack of mens rea and insanity. [3] However, Machekequonabe was acquitted of murder because the Crown was unable to prove that Machekequonabe intended to kill his foster father. [3] [1]
On appeal, Chief Justice John Douglas Armour held for the court that Machekequonabe was guilty of manslaughter despite not being aware that the common law existed. [1] Machekequonabe, the only reported case in which an accused person killed an alleged wendigo, became a precedent for the proposition that "Indigenous peoples were bound by colonial law regardless of their religious and cultural beliefs". [4]
R v Machekequonabe (1897), 28 OR 309, 2 CCC 138, was a decision of the Divisional Court of the Supreme Court of Ontario.
Machekequonabe, the accused, was an Anishinaabe man who shot and killed someone he believed to be a wendigo. [1] In fact, the man was his foster father. [2]
Machekequonabe was convicted of manslaughter at first instance: the trial judge rejected his alleged defences of lack of mens rea and insanity. [3] However, Machekequonabe was acquitted of murder because the Crown was unable to prove that Machekequonabe intended to kill his foster father. [3] [1]
On appeal, Chief Justice John Douglas Armour held for the court that Machekequonabe was guilty of manslaughter despite not being aware that the common law existed. [1] Machekequonabe, the only reported case in which an accused person killed an alleged wendigo, became a precedent for the proposition that "Indigenous peoples were bound by colonial law regardless of their religious and cultural beliefs". [4]