R v Maheno - [2013] NZHC 2430

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2013-029-000492 [2013] NZHC 2430

THE QUEEN

v

EDWIN HARVEY MAHENO

Charges:

Plea:

Murder x2

Guilty

Appearances: M B Smith and D B Stevens for Crown
K C Bailey and A M Dooney for Prisoner

Sentenced: 17 September 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Whangarei
Copy to: K C Bailey, Whangarei
A M Dooney, Whangarei

R v MAHENO [2013] NZHC 2430 [17 September 2013]

[1] Edwin Harvey Maheno, at the age of 39, you are before the Court for sentence having pleaded guilty to two counts of murder.

[2] I formally enter convictions in relation to those two counts. Given those convictions for murder you are now subject to the three strikes law. I am giving you now a warning of the consequences of another serious violence conviction. You will also be given a written notice outlining those consequences which list the serious violent offences. If you are convicted of any serious violent offence, other than murder, committed after this warning, and if a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment, then you will serve that sentence without parole or early release. If you are convicted of murder committed after this warning then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment. That will be served without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust. In that event the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment.

[3] I turn to the circumstances of your offending. You lived with the victims at a property known as the Maheno Whanau Homestead. You had lived at the address since you were a baby. You were raised there by your grandmother. One of the victims was your Uncle Ivan, who you regarded as a brother, the other was his wife Carmen. When your grandmother passed away in 2009 the house was left to Ivan. You continued living in the house as had been your grandmother’s wish.

[4] The relationship between you and Ivan and Carmen became strained. On the night of 18 May 2013 there had been a party at the address. As on a number of other occasions you did not join in, but kept to yourself. The following morning, Sunday
19 May 2013, you awoke early, had your breakfast and then was watching TV. While you were watching TV in the lounge you heard the victims talking in the kitchen. Carmen was apparently annoyed at a used teaspoon being returned and used again in the sugar bowl. Ivan approached you and an argument followed. Carmen also came into the lounge. There were verbal exchanges between you and her. You challenged Ivan to a fight but he declined. He then walked away to his bedroom and Carmen returned to the kitchen.

[5] You went to your room and took up a .22 rifle you kept there. You loaded the magazine with between five and seven rounds and chambered a round. You then walked to Ivan’s bedroom and shot him once in the face…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Maheno

Details

AGLC: R v Maheno [2013] NZHC 2430
Case: [2013] NZHC 2430
Decision Date: 17 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Edwin Harvey Maheno was sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand in Whangarei for two counts of murder. Maheno, aged 39, pleaded guilty to the charges. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, particularly the minimum term of imprisonment before parole could be considered. Given the nature of the murders and the three strikes law, Maheno faced a life sentence without parole or early release if convicted of another serious violent offence post-warning. The court had to balance the gravity of the crimes, the background context, and Maheno's culpability against mitigating factors.

The legal issues centered around the appropriate minimum term of imprisonment before parole could be considered. The Crown argued for a minimum term between 19 and 21 years, while Maheno's counsel suggested 17 years would be manifestly unjust, advocating for a term closer to 10 years. The court considered the circumstances of the murders, Maheno's background, his culpability, and the mitigating factors such as his guilty plea and mental health conditions.

The court concluded that Maheno's actions were callous and cruel, evidencing a high level of culpability despite the background of strained relationships. Although Maheno had limited time to stop his actions and there were elements of provocation, these did not sufficiently reduce his culpability to warrant a minimum term less than 17 years. Considering mitigating factors, including limited provocation, mental conditions, and his guilty plea, the court set the minimum non-parole period at 18 years. This decision was deemed appropriate and not manifestly unjust given the circumstances.

The final orders were that Maheno was sentenced to life imprisonment for both counts of murder, with a minimum non-parole period of 18 years.

Orders