This question can be answered through the two types of mens rea requirements: subjective and objective. If the accused consciously chose to commit the crime then the mens rea would be considered subjective. Pluto was unaware of his condition, which caused him to pass out, at the time of the accident, so there is reason to believe that he had no intention of committing this horrific crime. Objective mens rea looks at the incident from the point of view of a reasonable person. Due to the fact that Pluto had been having fainting spells before the accident, some might say that he neglected to investigate the reason for these fainting spells. They might even say that a reasonable person would have gone to the doctor, to determine whether or not they were at risk of this happening again, before anything serious happened. I personally believe that a reasonable person would ignore the occasional fainting spells and blame the spells on things like not eating enough or being dehydrated. Therefore, there is no evidence of a guilty mind and the mens rea of ​​the incident cannot be proven. Pluto did not have the unjust intention of killing the man and injuring him