Réjean Pépin

Case Summary

The city of Longueuil, Quebec, was hit with a string of five robberies at dry-cleaning establishments that took place on June 6, June 13, June 25, July 5, and August 29, 1985.1 Soon after the robberies, Longueuil police began what the Quebec Police Commission would later call a “botched and biased investigation.”2

Police believed that the same person committed all five robberies because of the shared modus operandi and description of the perpetrator in each instance.3 Detective Michel Viau and Constable Jacques Sevigny quickly fixated on Réjean Pépin, a 30-year-old building supplies clerk who had lived in Longueuil since 1974, as their primary suspect.4 Pépin was known to police because he had prior convictions, including for minor thefts. As it happened, he had been arrested, photographed, and fingerprinted on June 1, 1985, just prior to the robberies.5

However, Pépin had an alibi: his payroll records from his workplace that summer, a Brico Centre store, showed that he had been on shift when the robberies were committed.6

When Det. Viau interviewed witnesses to the robberies, only two of five identified Pépin. Nathalie Raymond, who was present at the first and fifth robberies, did not identify Pépin’s picture in a collection of 2000 suspect photos. However, she picked him out from a subsequent in-person line-up.7 Suzanne Monette, who was present at the second and third robberies, identified Pépin’s picture from the set of 2000 photos. She also picked him out when police brought her to the Brico Centre store, and again from an in-person line-up.8

Another witness, Nathalie Dupuis, who was present at the fourth robbery, categorically stated that she could not identify the robber.9 Later, she specifically told police that Pépin was not the perpetrator.10 Police, on the advice of the Crown, simply closed that case file: rather than question their theory that Pépin had committed these crimes, they reduced the number of robberies under investigation from five down to four.11

Another witness, Michelle Thivierge, told police that she had seen the robber before in her dry cleaning establishment. After studying Pépin’s photograph, she swore that he was not the perpetrator.12 The response of Det. Viau and Cst. Sevigny was to fail to invite her for any further line-ups; Thivierge also was not called to testify at trial.13 This was particularly unfortunate as she had given police a description of the robber: thin and short, with a dark complexion and curly, dark hair.14 Pépin, meanwhile, was 5’8’’ and 180 pounds, and he notably did not have dark or curly hair.15 Moreover, witnesses had described the perpetrator’s getaway car as burgundy, whereas Pépin drove a blue car.16

Despite these many discrepancies, Pépin was charged with four counts of robbery on February 27, 1986.17 Sessions Court Judge Dionne found him guilty on October 9, 1986.18 In reaching this verdict, the trial judge accepted the evidence of the only two witnesses to have identified Pépin, and rejected his alibi on the basis that Pépin could have snuck away from work to commit the crimes.19 He was sentenced on November 7, 1986 to three years in prison.20

Months later, Alain Vézina, who was serving a 56-month prison sentence for armed robbery, heard that Pépin was serving time for other robberies he had committed.21 Vezina came forward to rectify this injustice, swearing an affidavit that it was he, not Pépin, who had robbed the Longueuil dry cleaners.22

In light of this fresh evidence, Pépin appealed his conviction. He was released on bail pending appeal on April 24, 1987, six months into his sentence. The judge who ordered his release had reviewed sworn statements from both Vézina and Thivierge that Pépin did not commit the robberies.23

On June 2, 1987, the Quebec Court of Appeal quashed Pépin’s convictions given Vézina’s and Thiverge’s exonerating statements. The court ordered a new trial.24 The following year, Justice Sansfaçon acquitted Pépin after a two-day trial on September 18, 1988.25

After Pépin’s acquittal, the Quebec Police Commission held an inquiry into the conduct of the Longueuil police. The Commission found that the investigators had “first made up their minds, then stopped [investigating] as soon as the facts undermined their conclusions.”26 Specifically, Det. Viau had “failed to conduct a serious investigation” and Cst. Sevigny had cut the investigation short without verifying all the evidence.27 The Commission recommended that both officers receive a 30-day suspension for their “reprehensible” conduct.28 However, the Longueuil police chief did not accept the Commission’s recommendation, so the officers were never disciplined.29

Pépin sued the government, seeking compensation for his wrongful conviction, but the civil court dismissed his lawsuit in 1994.30


[1] Pépin c. Longueuil (Ville), 1994 CarswellQue 1735 at para. 17 [Pépin]; “Man’s confession clears jailed client, lawyer says”, Toronto Star (19 April 1987): A2 [Toronto Star].
[2] “Innocent man free at last; Jailed for six months, man cleared of charges”, The Ottawa Citizen (16 Oct 1988): A6.
[3] Pépin, supra note 1 at para. 52.
[4] Ibid. at paras. 47-49.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid. at para. 50.
[7] Ibid. at para. 18.
[8] Ibid. at paras. 23-24.
[9] Ibid. at para. 27.
[10] Ibid. at para. 89.
[11] Ibid. at para. 73; The Gazette, “Police negligent in robbery probe inquiry decides,” The Gazette (30 May 1987): A3 [Gazette].
[12] Pépin, supra note 1 at para. 38.
[13] Gazette, supra note 11.
[14] Kelly Wilton, “Man wrongfully jailed for robbery loses bid for $1 million in damages: [Final Edition]”, The Gazette (14 June 1994):A5 [Wilton].
[15] Ibid.
[16] Gazette, supra note 11.
[17] Pépin, supra note 1 at para. 1.
[18] Ibid. at paras. 76-77.
[19] Ibid. at para. 119; Rod MacDonell, “Man jailed in error is freed; Court to decide in May if conviction should be quashed”, The Gazette (25 April 1987): A1 [MacDonell].
[20] Pépin, supra note 1 at para. 1.
[21] Ibid. at para. 81.
[22] Toronto Star, supra note 1.
[23] MacDonnell, supra note 19.
[24] Pépin, supra note 1 at para. 1.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Wilton, supra note 14.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.; Gazette, supra note 11.
[29] Wilton, supra note 14.
[30] Pépin, supra note 1 at paras. 180-181.

 

 

Case Details

  • Full name:

    Réjean Pépin

  • Gender identity:

    Male

  • Race/ethnicity:

    Unknown

  • Age - at the time of conviction:

    31

  • Charges - specific offences:

    Robbery

  • Date of conviction:

    1986-10-09

  • Date wrongful conviction was overturned:

    1987-06-02

  • Sentence - total time served:

    00 years, 05 months, 19 days

  • Legal mechanism by which wrongful conviction was overturned:

    New evidence on first appeal

  • Status of alleged crime:

    Solved

  • Compensation Received?

    Unknown

  • Guilty plea?

    No

  • Cause(s) of wrongful conviction:

    Pépin was wrongfully convicted of a string of robberies after police ignored eyewitness evidence of his innocence in favour of their pre-existing belief in Pépin’s guilt. He was exonerated after the perpetrator came forward, having learned that Pépin was serving time for his crimes.