Guy Paul Morin

Case Summary

In the late afternoon of October 3, 1984, Janet Jessop and her son Kenneth returned home from the dentist to find Janet’s nine-year-old daughter, Christine, missing. In the early evening, they called the police, who commenced a search that would prove unsuccessful.1 Three months later, on December 31, 1984, Christine’s remains were found more than 50 kilometers from her home.2 She had been sexually assaulted and stabbed.3

Police attention was drawn to the Jessops’ next-door neighbour, Guy Paul Morin, whom the Jessops had described in an interview as a “‘weird-type guy’ and a clarinet player.” Investigators first formed the opinion that Morin was a suspect prior to interviewing him.4 He acted in a way that would later be characterized as “consciousness of guilt”: he stated to police that “all little girls are sweet and innocent but grow up to be corrupt”, knew where Christine’s body had been found – though this was common knowledge among Queensville residents – and did not attend Christine’s funeral.5 

Forensic analysis appeared to corroborate the police theory that Morin was the perpetrator. The Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) analyzed a single hair embedded in skin tissue on Christine Jessop’s necklace, and found that the hair was microscopically similar to Morin’s.6 In addition, CFS tested several hairs that were taken from Morin’s car and found them to be microscopically similar to Christine’s.7 Finally, CFS tested textile fibres retrieved from Morin’s car and home, concluding that these “could have come from the same source” as fibres found on Christine’s personal effects.8

Morin was arrested on April 22, 1985 and charged with Christine’s murder.9 At trial, his defence counsel argued that Morin was not guilty – but he also ran an alternative argument that if Morin had committed the crime, then he had a defence of insanity.10 On February 7, 1986, the jury acquitted Morin on the charge of first degree murder.11 The Crown appealed on grounds including that the trial judge had improperly prohibited the jury from using the defence evidence of Morin’s psychiatric history in determining whether or not he had killed Christine. The Ontario Court of Appeal ordered a new trial, and the Supreme Court of Canada upheld this result.12

Morin’s second trial began in 1990.13 The Crown called a number of new witnesses who claimed to have evidence of Morin’s alleged “consciousness of guilt” after Christine’s death.14 Two of the witnesses were incarcerated and had a history of lying to the authorities. In hopes of reducing their own sentences, the informants claimed that Morin had confessed in prison to killing Christine.15 Forensic hair and fibre comparison evidence was again called against Morin as well. The experts exaggerated the strength of this evidence and did not sufficiently disclose its limitations to the jury. They elided the crucial fact that such analysis could not support a positive identification of a particular person or textile source as the “match” for a given sample, rather than ruling out potential sources that proved not to be a match. In other words, this evidence could not be safely relied on to inculpate, rather than exclude, a suspect.16 Moreover, the hair and fibre samples in Morin’s trial had been contaminated – which the experts knew, but concealed from police and prosecutors.17

Morin was found guilty of first degree murder on July 30, 1992. He appealed his conviction, and on February 9, 1993, was released on bail pending appeal.18

Days before Morin’s appeal was to be heard, on January 23, 1995, DNA typing definitively excluded him as the perpetrator. Morin’s DNA sample did not match the DNA that had been found on Christine’s clothing. Morin’s conviction was set aside and an acquittal entered.19

Morin received an apology from Charles Harnick, then the Ontario Attorney General, and from Ken Jessop. The Ontario government awarded him $1.25 million in compensation.20 On June 26, 1996, a public inquiry led by the Honourable Justice Fred Kaufman was commissioned regarding Morin’s wrongful conviction. Justice Kaufman’s report criticized police and prosecutors for displaying “‘tunnel vision’ in the most staggering proportions.”21 Moreover, the Inquiry found that the hair and fibre evidence on which the Crown had relied was “essentially . . . valueless. Properly understood, it had little or no probative value in demonstrating Mr. Morin’s guilt.”22 In addition, the Inquiry criticized the Crown’s reliance on the testimony of incentivized “jailhouse informants” and from witnesses who had been influenced by the investigators’ tunnel vision, as well as evidence pertaining to Morin’s purported “consciousness of guilt”.23

As a result of Morin’s wrongful conviction, the true perpetrator was never prosecuted. On October 15, 2020, Toronto police used DNA evidence to identify the killer: Calvin Hoover, deceased, whom the Jessop family had thought was a friend.24


[1] Ontario, Ministry of the Attorney General, Report of the Kaufman Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin: “Executive Summary” (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1998) at pp. 3, 24 [Morin Inquiry Report – Executive Summary].
[2] R. v. Morin, 1987 CanLII 6819, 36 C.C.C. (3d) 50 (ON CA) at p. 55 [Morin 1987].
[3] Morin Inquiry Report – Executive Summary, supra note 1 at p. 3.
[4] Ibid. at p. 20.
[5] Ibid. at p. 21; Kirk Makin, “Guy Paul Morin Case” (5 January 2016, last edited 16 October 2020), The Canadian Encyclopedia, online: <https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/guy-paul-morin-case> (accessed 18 January 2023) [Makin].
[6] Morin Inquiry Report –  Executive Summary, supra note 1 at p. 4.
[7] Ibid. at p. 5.
[8] Ibid.; Ontario, Ministry of the Attorney General, Report of the Kaufman Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin: “Ch. II, Sections A-M” (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1998) at pp. 92-93 [Morin Inquiry Report – Ch. II (A-M)].
[9] Makin, supra note 5; Morin Inquiry Report –  Executive Summary, supra note 1 at p. 26.
[10] Morin 1987, supra note 2 at p. 57.
[11] Ibid. at p. 54.
[12] Ibid. at pp. 54-55; R. v. Morin, 1988 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1988] 2 SCR 345 at para 33.
[13] Ontario, Ministry of the Attorney General, Report of the Kaufman Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin: “Ch. I” (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1998) at pp. 73, 77 [Morin Inquiry Report – Ch. I].
[14] Morin Inquiry Report – Executive Summary, supra note 1 at pp. 26-34.
[15] Ibid. at pp. 9-10.
[16] Morin Inquiry Report – Ch. II (A-M), supra note 8 at pp. 109-110.
[17] Morin Inquiry Report – Executive Summary, supra note 1 at pp. 6-7.
[18] Morin Inquiry Report – Ch. I, supra note 13 at p. 78; Makin, supra note 5.
[19] Morin Inquiry Report – Ch. I, supra note 13 at pp. 78-79.
[20] Dawn Anderson and Barrie Anderson, “The Case of Guy Paul Morin”, Manufacturing Guilt: Wrongful Convictions in Canada, 2d ed. (Halifax: Fernwood, 2009) at p. 80.
[21] Morin Inquiry Report – Executive Summary, supra note 1 at pp. 11, 26, 39.
[22] Morin Inquiry Report – Ch. II (A-M), supra note 8 at p. 1.
[23] Morin Inquiry Report – Executive Summary, supra note 1 at pp. 20, 26, 29, 33.
[24] Makin, supra note 5.

 

 

Case Details

  • Full name:

    Guy Paul Morin

  • Gender identity:

    Male

  • Race/ethnicity:

    White (caucasian)

  • Age - at the time of conviction:

    32

  • Charges - specific offences:

    First degree murder

  • Date of conviction:

    1992-07-30

  • Date wrongful conviction was overturned:

    1995-01-23

  • Sentence - total time served:

    01 years, 04 months, 10 days

  • Legal mechanism by which wrongful conviction was overturned:

    New evidence on first appeal

  • Status of alleged crime:

    Solved

  • Compensation Received?

    Yes

  • Guilty plea?

    No

  • Cause(s) of wrongful conviction:

    Morin’s wrongful conviction for the murder of his nine-year-old neighbour, Christine, resulted from investigative “‘tunnel vision’ in the most staggering proportions.” The Crown also relied on “jailhouse informants” who claimed to have heard him confess to the murder. In addition, forensic hair and fibre analysis experts misled the court as to the strength of their evidence.