Norbert Budai’s behaviour was absurd and shocking when he lit his ex-wife, Henrietta Viski’s hair on fire after he learned she was cheating on him. However, reasonable doubt exists as to whether he planned and deliberated her murder, according to Budai’s lawyer, R. Louis Dallas.
During closing submissions at Budai’s first-degree murder trial, Dallas told Superior Court Justice Jane Kelly that Budai’s consumption of fentanyl the day of the attack and the day prior would have affected his ability to plan and deliberate the murder of his wife.
“He is a Hungarian Roma refugee with a Grade 8 education. He was treated badly in Hungary. When he discovered his wife was cheating on him, he couldn’t handle it,” said the defence lawyer who said Budai described a relationship that was on the rocks but not hopeless, born out of the fact that he attended, met and drove with his son and Ms. Viski the day before.
Dallas added it defied logic and common sense that Budai would plan and deliberate a murder knowing they were on camera. The 37-year-old was doused with gasoline inside her Chester Le townhouse, which Dallas pointed out is in a Toronto public housing complex.
“It happened at 2 p.m., with people milling about and if we look at the way the fire starts, it starts very quickly and catches him by surprise. We see him racing to his wife, wrestling her to the ground and trying to put the fire out,” said Dalles.
The defence argued that he wanted to burn her hair out because that represented her infidelity. After being unsuccessful at extinguishing the fire the first time, Dallas pointed out that Budai ran into the house to get a bucket of water in a second attempt.
Get breaking National news
For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.
He also noted that Budai remained on scene which, he said during examination, was chiefly because he wanted to ensure his wife got help. “None of these indicate planning and deliberation,” said Dallas.
“His actions were consistent with an impulsive, horribly unreasoned act that went further than he thought it would,” Dallas added.
But Crown attorney Matthew Shumka told Justice Kelly that Budai’s actions were not impulsive, but rather planned and purposeful. “He said he would light her (Viski) on fire the day prior. He returned, brought gasoline with him, broke into her home, and did precisely what he said he would do,” Shumka said.
“That was the plan, light her on fire.”
Shuma said that Budai’s ability to understand the inevitable consequences of his actions were not negated by intoxication.
“This is one of the clearest instances of motive I have seen. He says he threatened to kill her and beset her dwelling with a view to ‘get my family back.’ After he threatens to light her on fire and actually kills her, he says it again: ‘I did this for my children.’ The evidence on this case is quite literally bookended with his twisted motive of re-building his broken family at any cost,” Shumka explained.
The Crown called Budai’s “horrible accident” description factually debatable given the fact Budai can be seen on video surveillance pulling his ex-wife’s hair after setting her on fire with a lighter. The camera does not capture him dousing her with gasoline from a red plastic container but that’s an admitted fact.
“He was so overcome with rage and jealousy and pettiness, even when she was burning, he has to rip her hair out,” said Shumka. “Who would ever do that, as she’s burning?”
The defence said that Budai’s claim that he “just wanted to burn her hair off ” was absurd. “Maybe he did regret the horror of his actions as their consequences unfolded in front of him. It’s legally irrelevant. Intent for murder had already crystallized.”
The judge is expected to deliver her verdict on Oct. 18th.
© 2024 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.