Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

171The ―Introduction‖ states the basics of the case. It introduces the parties,summarizes the determinative facts and essential procedure, and briefly states the issues.The introduction lays the foundation for the analysis that follows. For instance, from theIntroduction section of the judgment R v. Solowan, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 309 (cf. Appendix 3)one learns that: 1) the accused pleaded guilty of hybrid offences against the Crown; 2) theaccused appealed the maximum sentences arguing that the trial judge did not follow theprinciple of ―worst offender, worst offence‖ 15 applicable to maximum sentences; 3) theCourt of Appeal rejected the appeal but changed the sentence that had been imposed on theaccused; and that 4) the accused now appeals on the ground that the Court of Appealdisregarded the Crown‘s election to proceed by way of summary conviction 16 .In the section called ―Facts‖, the facts and history that affect the analysis anddecision of the case are discussed. Facts are written in chronological order or by themewhen a chronological order would be confusing. Where the facts are in dispute, the judgemay prefer to narrate the facts in greater detail. Consider the case R v. Solowan, [2008] 3S.C.R. 309 mentioned above (cf. Appendix 3). Here, we learn about: the reasons why theaccused was sentenced (stolen property, failure to stop a motor vehicle while being pursuedby the police), the procedure elected by the Crown to try the case (summarily as opposed toas indictment), and the response of the Court of Appeal (the principle of ―worst offender,15 ―By ―worst offender‖ we mean that the defendant must be the worst type of offender ―within the group ofpersons committing the offense in question.‖ Wilson v. State, 582 P.2d 154, 157 n.3 (Alaska 1978). Inevaluating whether a particular defendant is a worst offender we look at the manner in which the crime wascommitted, as well as the character and background of the defendant. Moore v. State, 597 P.2d 975, 976 n.4(Alaska 1979); Saganna v. State, 594 P.2d 69 (Alaska 1979). In State v. Wortham, 537 P.2d 1117, 1120(Alaska 1975), we listed several factors the court has looked to in order to support a characterization as worstoffender: prior criminal convictions, age, military records, employment history, drug or alcohol addition,presentence report evaluations and predictions, and the possible presence of antisocial tendencies which posea clear risk to the public.‖ (MICHAEL LOREN HINTZ v. STATE ALASKA 1981).16 Summary conviction: ―The conviction of a person, (usually for a minor misdemeanor) as the result of histrial before a magistrate or court, without the intervention of a jury, which is authorized by statute in Englandand in many of the states. In these proceedings there is no intervention of a jury, but the party accused isacquitted or condemned by the suffrage of such person only as the statute has appointed to be his judge. Aconviction reached on such a magistrate‘s trial is called a ―summary conviction.‖ Brown; Blair v. Com., 25Grat. (Va.) 853.‖ (Black‘s Law Dictionary 2012)