The mens rea required to convict Hutt of first-degree murder is the mens rea of intent
plus planned and deliberate. Mr. Hutt threw boiling water on his wife and decided to
instead put her in the basement and not aid her with her injuries which resulted in her
death. This demonstrates Mr. Hutt’s intention of exercise of free will, the use of
particular means to produce a particular result. When an accused is certain or
substantially certain that their actions would lead to particular prohibited consequence
then in law the accused is held to have intent of the crime. According to section 229 of
the criminal code, an individual who intends to take the life of a human being is causing
first-degree murder. Also section 231 (2) of …show more content…
The defendant took his wife’s
liberty, dignity, and took her potential of life. Therefore, the crown would like to convict
Mr. Hutt of first degree murder. The cases of intent, planned and deliberate can also be
linked back to RV. Buzzanga and Duroche, A 1970 Ontario Court of appeal decision.
Buzzanga and Duroche are two men who are part of the French Canadian community, in
Windsor Ontario. The two intentionally put up handbills everywhere that were against the
French community. This is done to stir people so the community will then go fourth and
support the French high school idea. In a turn of events this does not happen and there is
an outrage. Buzzanga and Duroche are then charged under section 319 (2), Public
incitement of hatred. They both fulfill the actus reas of the offence, as they
communicated statements in the handbills that were not within private conversation as
they were posted all over Windsor. The handbills promoted hatred and the hatred was
promoted against an identifiable group, which was the French Canadian community in
Windsor. The accused both has the required mens rea of intent where they …show more content…
This relates back to Mr.
Hutt where he has the subjective foresight of his wife’s death, both cases have done
certain actions, which resulted in the prohibited consequences. They were both fully
aware of the consequences that would follow as he purposely did not admit his wife into
a hospital and further more caused her numerous amount of injuries throughout her state
of suffering. He was aware that the injuries he caused her would lead to her demise. On
the other hand the defense says that Mr. Hutt committed man slaughter and did not
commit first degree murder. They argue that Mr. Hutt was not certain of the
consequences and did not intend to kill his wife. The defense argues that Mr. Hutt did not
commit the murder of his wife as he called 911 right away when he found his wife not
breathing. They also argued that Mr. Hutt would not kill his wife intentionally as he
needed her and without her his is nothing. They argued that he would not her purposely
as she was the only one in his corner. This relates back to Rv. Pappa John’s case, which
was a 1980 supreme court of Canada decision, where Pappas John believed that
plus planned and deliberate. Mr. Hutt threw boiling water on his wife and decided to
instead put her in the basement and not aid her with her injuries which resulted in her
death. This demonstrates Mr. Hutt’s intention of exercise of free will, the use of
particular means to produce a particular result. When an accused is certain or
substantially certain that their actions would lead to particular prohibited consequence
then in law the accused is held to have intent of the crime. According to section 229 of
the criminal code, an individual who intends to take the life of a human being is causing
first-degree murder. Also section 231 (2) of …show more content…
The defendant took his wife’s
liberty, dignity, and took her potential of life. Therefore, the crown would like to convict
Mr. Hutt of first degree murder. The cases of intent, planned and deliberate can also be
linked back to RV. Buzzanga and Duroche, A 1970 Ontario Court of appeal decision.
Buzzanga and Duroche are two men who are part of the French Canadian community, in
Windsor Ontario. The two intentionally put up handbills everywhere that were against the
French community. This is done to stir people so the community will then go fourth and
support the French high school idea. In a turn of events this does not happen and there is
an outrage. Buzzanga and Duroche are then charged under section 319 (2), Public
incitement of hatred. They both fulfill the actus reas of the offence, as they
communicated statements in the handbills that were not within private conversation as
they were posted all over Windsor. The handbills promoted hatred and the hatred was
promoted against an identifiable group, which was the French Canadian community in
Windsor. The accused both has the required mens rea of intent where they …show more content…
This relates back to Mr.
Hutt where he has the subjective foresight of his wife’s death, both cases have done
certain actions, which resulted in the prohibited consequences. They were both fully
aware of the consequences that would follow as he purposely did not admit his wife into
a hospital and further more caused her numerous amount of injuries throughout her state
of suffering. He was aware that the injuries he caused her would lead to her demise. On
the other hand the defense says that Mr. Hutt committed man slaughter and did not
commit first degree murder. They argue that Mr. Hutt was not certain of the
consequences and did not intend to kill his wife. The defense argues that Mr. Hutt did not
commit the murder of his wife as he called 911 right away when he found his wife not
breathing. They also argued that Mr. Hutt would not kill his wife intentionally as he
needed her and without her his is nothing. They argued that he would not her purposely
as she was the only one in his corner. This relates back to Rv. Pappa John’s case, which
was a 1980 supreme court of Canada decision, where Pappas John believed that