In a dramatic courtroom revelation that has sent ripples through Quebec’s legal community, the defence for Steeve Gagnon—the man behind the wheel during last year’s fatal truck collision in Amqui—has presented their central argument: the deaths of two pedestrians were purely accidental, not intentional homicide.
The trial, which began this week at the Rimouski courthouse, has captured national attention as Gagnon faces serious charges including two counts of first-degree murder and nine counts of attempted murder after his pickup truck struck eleven pedestrians on March 13, 2023, in the eastern Quebec town.
“What happened in Amqui was a terrible accident, not a premeditated act,” declared defence lawyer Hugo Caissy during Tuesday’s proceedings. This assertion directly challenges the prosecution’s narrative that Gagnon deliberately targeted the pedestrians in what amounted to a calculated attack.
Crown prosecutor Simon Blanchette presented a starkly different interpretation of events, telling jurors that evidence will show Gagnon intentionally aimed his vehicle at pedestrians walking along Highway 132, striking them at approximately 70 km/h without attempting to brake.
The incident resulted in the deaths of 65-year-old Gérald Charest and 73-year-old Jean Lafrenière, while nine others—including three children—sustained injuries of varying severity. The emotional impact of these losses continues to reverberate through the small community of roughly 6,000 residents.
Particularly compelling was Blanchette’s revelation that Gagnon allegedly confessed to police that his actions were deliberate, stating he “wanted to create chaos.” The prosecution claims this admission came shortly after Gagnon turned himself in at the local provincial police station following the collision.
However, Caissy countered by encouraging jurors to consider the complete context of his client’s statements, suggesting that Gagnon’s full interview with authorities would reveal a more nuanced picture than the prosecution has portrayed.
“You will hear Mr. Gagnon’s complete statement to police,” Caissy told the jury. “You will then understand why we say this was an accident.”
The trial is expected to hear testimony from approximately 30 witnesses, including survivors, first responders, and experts in accident reconstruction. Medical professionals may provide critical insights regarding Gagnon’s mental state at the time of the incident—a factor that could significantly influence the jury’s determination of intent.
As political discussions around public safety measures intensify, the case has raised questions about vehicle attacks and mental health supports in smaller communities. Local officials have already implemented additional pedestrian safety measures along Highway 132 in response to the tragedy.
Legal experts following the case note that the distinction between accidental and intentional acts will be crucial for the jury’s deliberation. Under Canadian law, first-degree murder requires proof of both intent and premeditation, creating a high threshold for conviction.
“The defence only needs to create reasonable doubt about Gagnon’s intentions,” explained Marie Dumont, a criminal law professor not involved in the case. “If jurors believe there’s a possibility this was an accident rather than a deliberate act, they cannot convict on the murder charges.”
As the trial proceeds through what is expected to be several weeks of testimony, the community of Amqui faces the difficult process of revisiting a tragedy that forever changed their town. A memorial erected near the crash site continues to draw visitors who place flowers in remembrance of those lost.
What remains to be seen is whether twelve ordinary citizens will view this case as a horrific accident born of negligence or something far more sinister—and how their decision might reshape our understanding of intent, responsibility, and justice in cases where vehicles become instruments of mass casualty.
