Police officer Maxime Lehoux was found guilty of sexual assault on Friday by members of the jury who had been deliberating since Tuesday.
This means that the five men and five women did not accept the theory presented by the defense.
The latter maintained that the victim, a young policewoman, was perfectly consenting when Maxime Lehoux came to his room, in December 2016, to have sexual antics.
Conversely, the lawyer for criminal and penal prosecutions, Me Ann Marie Prince, had instead argued that during a Christmas party attended by several police officers from the Quebec City Police Department in Stoneham, Lehoux had taken advantage of the policewoman’s advanced state of drunkenness for the sexually assault.
According to the two expert evidence presented, the blood alcohol level of the young woman must have been, at the time of the sexual act, between 90 and 116 mg in 100 ml of blood since between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. had breathed a level of 75 mg in 100 ml of blood.
Based on expert reports, the defense argued that the estimated rates did not correspond to the symptoms described by the victim. The latter said that she had been unable to push Lehoux away because of the state in which she was.
After procrastinating for a year, she finally decided to file a complaint in December 2017.
The 30-year-old, who now acts as a project manager for a construction company, will return to court on May 26 for sentencing submissions. However, he is not at the end of his sentences.
In August, Lehoux will face a second trial on a similar charge which follows the revelations of a second complainant for acts allegedly committed in February 2018.
According to information obtained by The newspaper during Lehoux’s second arrest, the alleged acts occurred at the young woman’s home after he had met her in a bar.
Remember that during the process, the jury, which was made up of seven men and five women, saw two of its members be excluded. The first “because he carried out his own investigation” by checking information on the internet during the trial, and the second who said he was “unable to be impartial”.