Lightwood And Rigaud

In order to determine whether an individual is criminally responsible, the actus reus which is the voluntary culpable act and the mens rea which is the mental state of mind, the guilty mind should both be present beyond a reasonable doubt during the criminal act (Verdun Jones, 2014, p. 23). According to section 229 (a) of the Criminal Code, in order to be convicted of culpable homicide, the intention to inflict bodily harm that is likely to result in death is required (Verdun Jones, 2014, p. 43). According to the Forensic experts, Lightwood’s death did not result from the injuries when he was attacked by an ice pick but rather from the effect and exposure he suffered from the fall. It is important to determine whether the mens rea of …show more content…
39- 40). In addition, if Rigaud held the belief that Lightwood was dead before he threw Lightwood over the cliff then the omissions would not have been foreseeable to a reasonable person behind his conduct. Thus, Rigaud did not have the intention of killing Lightwood by pushing him off the cliff since he asserted to believe that Lightwood was already dead before he pushed him off. However, we can only assume that Rigaud did mistakenly believed that Lightwood was already dead before he was thrown off the cliff because there was no evidence to prove the truth. Referring to the Cooper case (1993), it sets an important and crucial principle for the actus reus and mens rea to coincide in order to be convicted of a serious crime (Verdun Jones, 2015, p. 54). The first initial voluntary act, when Rigaud attacked Lightwood with an ice pick was accompanied by the necessary mens rea but the harm was not sufficient enough to have caused the death. While the second act, when Rigaud threw Lightwood off the cliff believing that he was already death was the legal cause of Lightwood’ death, but it was not accompanied by mens