HIGH COURT (BISHO) JUDGMENT ~~ 1. The indictment sets out two charges against the accused. The first charge is
|
|
- Catherine Waters
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 HIGH COURT (BISHO) CASE No. CC13/2000 THE STATE versus INGA BONIWE Accused JUDGMENT ~~ EBRAHIM J: 1. The indictment sets out two charges against the accused. The first charge is that 'on or about the15th June 1999 and at or near NU 1 Mdantsane in the District of Mdantsane, the accused did unlawfully and intentionally kill Nkosinathi Gwebeleo Ngcayiya, a male adult'. The second charge is 'that on or about 15th June 1999 and at or near NU1 Mdantsane in the district of Mdantsane, the accused did wrongfully and unlawfully have in his possession a 9mm short Browning pistol without a licence to possess the said arm', thereby contravening s 2 read with s 1, 39(1 )(l) and 39(2) of Act 75 of The accused pleaded not guilty to count 1 and in terms of s115 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51/77 ('the CPA') elected not to disclose the basis of his defence. On count 2 the accused pleaded guilty. The State accepted this plea of guilty but indicated that it would still lead evidence in respect of this charge. The
2 -2- admission by the accused that he was in possession of the firearm was recorded as a formal admission in terms of s 220 of the CPA. 3. A number of witnesses were called by the State to testify in substantiation of both charges. These witnesses were Nkosinathi Tshwaku, Ayanda Ntengento, Khaya Nkonyana, Siphelele Lose, Andile Patrick Ntengento, Bongani Goniwe, Thandile Minki Sileku and Inspector Elliot Molosi. 4. Additional witnesses who testified were Inspector Khayalethu Newell Potwana and Sergeant Ntsikelelo Richman Nkwenkwe who are members of the SA Police Service. Thei r evidence related to Exhibit 'A' which is a set of photographs depicting the scene of the shooting and the deceased's body lying in the street. Inspector Mkhuseli Potwana testified in regard to Exhibit 'F' which is a series of photographs depicting the premises outside which the firearm was recovered and where the accused was arrested. It also shows the spot where Inspector Elliot Molosi was standing when he observed the accused pushing the firearm out of the door of the house. The testimony of Inspector Elliot Molosi was that he arrested the accused and took possession of the firearm which was handed in as Exhibit no.1. He also stated that he sent the firearm to the Ballistics Unit for the purpose of having tests conducted. 5. The State's version of the events which resulted in the death of the deceased, Nkosinathi Gwebelelo Ngcayiya, is as follows: on the evening of 15 June 1999 at about 8:00 pm the deceased was one of a group of youths walking along a
3 -3- road in NU 1 Mdantsane. The aforementioned witnesses were also part of the group who were all joking and singing. At some stage the deceased asked Andile Ntengento for a cigarette and when Andile refused to give him one the deceased said that he would produce a flywheel. Some of the witnesses have explained that a flywheel is slang for a gun. At this stage the accused arrived and asked the deceased for the flywheel. When the deceased explained to the accused that he did not have one the accused threatened to shoot him. The deceased replied to this by saying 'Shoot me!' and thereafter a shot was fired. 6. In addition to this evidence certain formal admissions were made by the defence and recorded in terms of s 220 of the CPA. These related to the removal of the deceased's body from the scene of the shooting to the Cecilia Makiwane Hospital and from there to the Mdantsane Hospital during the course of which no injuries were inflicted on the body of the deceased. It was also admitted that the cause of the deceased's death was a gunshot injury to the chest and that Exhibit no. 1 was the firearm from which the fatal shot was fired. 7. The accused's defence, as it emerged during cross-examination of the State witnesses by defence counsel, is that the deceased and other members of the group of youths had attempted to rob him. The deceased, who was armed with a firearm, had said that he would shoot the accused and thereafter the accused and the deceased became involved in a struggle over the gun. During the course of the struggle a shot went off which struck the deceased.
4 -4-8. When the accused testified in his own defence he expanded on the version which defence counsel had put to the state witnesses. This was to the effect that the deceased had demanded money from him and had approached him in order to search him. In the process he grabbed the deceased's hand holding the firearm and they struggled. A shot went off and both of them fell to the ground and the firearm also fell. He then picked up the firearm and took it with him, leaving the deceased lying in the street. This firearm he gave to the police when they arrived at his house. He denied having met the witness Bongani Goniwe and had not taken the firearm (Exhibit No. 1) from him. The accused did not tender any further evidence. 9. Mr Kristafor, who appears for the State submitted in argument that there was a simple issue which had to be determined. This was whether the accused was in possession of the firearm and had shot the deceased or whether the deceased had the firearm and a struggle ensued between them during the course of which a shot went off fatally injuring the deceased. He submitted that the State witnesses had not contradicted each other nor were there contradictions in their evidence. Although the witnesses had not been forthcoming their stories, as he says, hang together and are consistent. The accused's claim that all the witnesses, including the police, had conspired to implicate him falsely, was without substance. There was no indication that the different witnesses were involved in a conspiracy. There was no connection between the witness Bongani Goniwe and the group of youths who were at the scene of shooting. There was nothing to suggest either that Inspector Molosi
5 -5- had a motive to falsely implicate the accused. Even if the Court was dissatisfied with certain aspects of their evidence the Court should not reject their evidence in its entirety. It was clear that their story was consistent in regard to the shooting and that they had told the truth. It was the version which the accused had furnished that was untruthful and should be rejected by the Court. He asked that the accused be convicted on both counts. 10. Mr Swartbooi who appears for the accused, has contended that these witnesses cannot be believed - to put it more bluntly, he says that they have lied about the events giving rise to the shooting of the deceased. He also contends that the differences in their evidence and the statements which they made to the police amount to contradictions and as a result the Court must reject their versions. 11. Mr Swartbooi submitted that even though all the witnesses had kept to the skeleton of their story they had contradicted each other on other aspects. Some of them were also untruthful in their claim that they did not know what a flywheel was. There were also contradictions in regard to the manner in which the accused pointed the firearm at the deceased. Since they had lied about certain things this reflected on their credibility and the Court should reject the evidence of these witnesses. 12. He contended further that the version of Inspector Molosi regarding the recovery of the firearm did not differ from that of the accused. But even if the Court found that the versions differed, he contended that the version of the accused should
6 -6- be accepted in preference to that of Inspector Molosi. Defence counsel conceded, however, that the evidence of Inspector Molosi had not been disputed by the defence. Further, the accused's version was reasonably possibly true and he had been a good witness and had answered questions without hesitation. 13. Defence counsel conceded further that he had not been able to bring into question the evidence of Andile Patrick Ntengento in regard to what had transpired when the deceased was shot. His contention was nevertheless that the Court should not accept his evidence in preference to that of the accused. Even though the evidence of Inspector Molosi had not been disputed it was probable that the witnesses had conspired. He submitted that the accused should be acquitted on count 1 and only be convicted on count 2, to which he had pleaded guilty. These briefly were the submissions of both counsel. 14. An evaluation of the evidence establishes the following The version of the witnesses at the scene of shooting are, by and large, similar but are diametrically opposed to the version that the accused has provided While the witnesses differ, to some extent, in regard to certain events the question is whether there are contradictions that are of a material nature and are such that it casts doubt on the truthfulness of their evidence in its entirety. I shall in due course comment further on this.
7 The conduct of the witnesses after the deceased was shot is to be criticised. None of them thought of rendering any assistance to him nor of summoning the assistance of some one else. When they were asked by the Court to explain why they had displayed such lack of concern for the deceased the answers provided by some of them were far from satisfactory. It is clear that they were only interested in safeguarding their own interests and were not concerned about the well-being of the deceased They all say that the accused approached them from behind and not from the front as claimed by the accused. They also deny that they or the deceased tried to rob the accused Although they all state that there was talk of a flywheel by the deceased some have claimed not to know what is meant by a flywheel. They are obviously being untruthful in this regard They also say that when the accused demanded that the deceased hand over the flywheel to him that the deceased responded by saying that he did not have one They say further that the accused then threatened to shoot the deceased if he did not hand over the flywheel and that the deceased replied, 'Shoot me!'. There are slight differences in the wording of the witnesses in
8 -8- regard to what the deceased said but in essence it amounts to the deceased having issued a challenge to the accused to shoot him All of them deny that the deceased was in possession of a firearm. They say that they considered the deceased to be joking when he said that he had a flywheel Any differences in the versions of the witnesses are confined almost solely to issues which are peripheral to the shooting incident or occurred subsequent thereto. Indeed, Mr Swartbooi was obliged to concede that the witnesses had not deviated from their stories The defence has not disputed that the word flywheel is meant to refer to a revolver. It should be noted, however, that Exhibit no. 1 is not a revolver but a firearm which is equipped with a magazine containing the bullets. The defence has confirmed that this is the weapon that the accused says the deceased had in his possession and which the accused picked up when it fell from the grasp of the accused. 15. I turn to consider the implications of these aspects. One may undoubtedly be critical of the individual conduct of some of the witnesses in relation to events after the deceased was shot and of their attempts to distance themselves from the shooting. But, ultimately the question is whether they have lied about what occurred or merely not been entirely frank in every respect. In the final analysis,
9 -9- is their evidence to be rejected in its entirety or have they been truthful in regard to certain events. 16. The claim by the defence that they have conspired to falsely implicate the accused is not substantiated by the facts. It emerges from the evidence that all of them were confronted and interviewed by the police a matter of some hours after the deceased was shot. If they have conspired in constructing the story which each was to tell the police the only opportunity they had for doing so was in the few hours before the police came to their respective homes. It goes without saying that they would have had to assemble as a group to co-ordinate their versions. But, this is not borne out by the evidence. 17. It is not disputed that they dispersed immediately on hearing the shot and ran off in different directions. Some ran to the home of a person named Thando and others to their own or some one else's place. Nkosinathi Tshwaku and an individual, Sonwabo, who was part of the group, were with Ayanda Ntengento and rantothando'shome. Khaya Nkonyana ran to a nearby house. Siphelele Lose and a person named Siyabonga also ran to Thando's house. Andile Patrick Ntengento ran to the house of a person called Mandla and stayed there for about five minutes before going home. There is no evidence to suggest that when they were at the house of Thando that they concocted a false or different version of the events and that they then conveyed this to those not present there.
10 The witnesses were intervieved by the police, and made statements, on different dates. Nkosinathi Tshwaku made a statement to Inspector E Molosi and so did Andile Ntengento as well as Thandile Sileku. Ayanda Ntengento, on the other hand, made his statement to Sergeant Gcukana. There is no indication that there was any collusion between Inspector Molosi and Sergeant Gcukana. 19. The versions of the witnesses are substantially similar and any variations in their stories are attributable to differences in observation or the position from which they saw what was happening. There is no indication that they have adjusted their versions so that they agree with each other in regard to the details of the events of that evening. 20. If there was a conspiracy, as claimed by the accused, involving the witnesses and Inspector E Molosi then this would surely have been apparent from their statements to the police. A perusal of the statements of the witnesses, Nkosinathi Tshwaku and Andile Ntengento, which were introduced by the defence as Exhibits 'B\ and 'E' respectively, does not support this. On the contrary what they highlight is that each witness had a different perspective of the incident. But, I need not speculate in regard to the claim of a conspiracy since this was never put to any of the witnesses nor, in particular, to Inspector Molosi. In fact, as I have stated previously, the evidence of Inspector Molosi stands completely undisputed. The submission by defence counsel that the evidence of Inspector Molosi should nevertheless not be accepted in preference to that of the accused is without foundation. It needs to be noted that the issue
11 -11- of the credibility of Inspector Molosi in comparison to that of the accused as a witness, against the background of the accused's allegation that Inspector Molosi conspired with the other State witnesses to falsely implicate the accused, was understandably not addressed by counsel. Significantly, too, the allegation of a conspiracy, which was never put to any of the witnesses, only came to the fore when the accused testified. 21. I find no basis for rejecting the evidence of Inspector Molosi. He was a credible witness and conveyed his observations of the accused's attempt to distance himself from the firearm honestly and in an unbiased manner. He described what he had seen in a straight-forward manner. There was no indication that he was exaggerating what he had observed or that he was seeking to implicate the accused falsely. Inspector Molosi was a truthful and reliable witness and I accept his evidence in preference to that of the accused where they conflict with each other. 22. The witness Tshwaku, despite any criticism one may have of his evidence regarding events subsequent to the shooting, was a credible witness. There is nothing improbable in his version and it does not contradict the findings of the doctor as set out in the Post-Mortem Report in respect of the wound on the body of the deceased. Such inconsistences or contradictions as there may be in his evidence are confined largely to peripheral issues. In any event, they are not of a material nature. He was not a perfect witness but I find his observations of what transpired between the accused and the deceased to be a reliable and
12 -12- truthful account of the shooting. His version does not contradict that of the other witnesses and I accept his evidence in this regard. 23. The witness Ayanda Ntengento was similarly not a perfect witness. In his case, too, there are certain inconsistencies in respect of his account of events subsequent to the shooting. But these are not of a material nature nor are they such that I should reject his evidence in its entirety. I do not consider his account of the events leading up to the shooting to be a fabrication nor is it contradictory. It would have been an easy matter, if he was fabricating, to have said that he saw the accused shoot the deceased. Instead, he says that when the shot was fired he had his back to them. I find his evidence regarding the circumstances of how the shooting occurred to be reliable. He was a credible witness in this regard and his version does not contradict the evidence of the other witnesses. I accept his evidence. 24. The evidence of the witness Khaya Nkonyana was also not free of imperfections. However, the inconsistences in his evidence are not of a material nature and do not lead me to the conclusion that he has lied about the actions of the accused or of the circumstances surrounding the shooting of the deceased. He, too, says that he had only heard, but did not see, the shot being fired. Prior to the gunshot he had seen the accused holding the gun to the head of the deceased but he (i.e. the witness) then turned away. It is only thereafter that he heard the gunshot. I do not find his evidence to be contradictory of that of the other witnesses. The fact that the deceased was actually shot in the chest is not an
13 -13- indication that this witness is lying nor does it make it improbable that the gun may have been pointed at the head of the deceased at some earlier stage. He was a credible and reliable witness and his version of the events is not contradictory of the versions of the other witnesses. I accept his evidence. 25. In the case of the witness, Siphelele Lose, too, one may be critical of certain aspects of his evidence. But, again the inconsistencies are not of a material nature. He confirms that there was a conversation between the deceased and Andile concerning a cigarette. He similarly only heard the gunshot but did not see the shot being fired. Prior thereto he had heard the accused demand the flywheel from the deceased and threaten to shoot him. He could easily have fabricated that he had seen the accused shoot the deceased but clearly he has not done so. I find him to be a credible witness and his observations reliable. I accept that his evidence is truthful in this regard. He, too, has not contradicted the versions furnished by the other witnesses. 26. The witness Andile Patrick Ntengento is the person whom the deceased approached for a cigarette. In his case, too, one may be critical of certain aspects of his evidence but these concern peripheral issues. In regard to the circumstances of the shooting of the deceased his evidence is trustworthy. His account of the events accords with that of the other witnesses. Thus, he confirms that the accused had demanded that the deceased hand over the flywheel which the deceased had spoken about, and that the accused had said that he would shoot the deceased if he did not do so. He also confirms that the
14 -14- deceased was not in possession of a firearm nor had the deceased or any of the members of the group been involved in robbing the accused. He also denied the suggestion by defence counsel that he had concocted the version which he had related to the court. I find him to have been honest in his description of what had transpired and that his evidence is reliable. His version is supported by the evidence of the other witnesses. He created a good impression and was a credible witness. I find his evidence regarding the shooting to be the truth and I accept same. 27. The evidence of Bongani Goniwe was introduced by the State for the purpose of establishing that the accused had obtained possession unlawfully of the firearm, which is Exhibit no. 1, prior to his encounter with the deceased. He testified that he had gained possession of the firearm when a person known as Brighty dropped it during the course of a fight in a shebeen. Some three days thereafter he met the accused, who was in the company of some other men, and the accused then dispossessed him of the firearm. This had occurred less than five days before the death of the deceased. Even though he was unable to provide the dates of any of the events this does not diminish the trustworthiness of his evidence. He was able to identify the firearm through a defect it had and described this to the Court before Exhibit no.1 was shown to him. He was a credible witness and created a favourable impression. I accept his evidence. 28. The credibility of the witness, Thandile Minki Sileku, was impeached by the State as his evidence conflicted with the statement which he had previously made to
15 -15- the police. His evidence related to a cartridge case and bullet head which he and a person named Sonwabo had supposedly found lying next to the body of the deceased a short while after the shooting. The relevance of this evidence in establishing the guilt of the accused was not clarified by the State and since its exclusion would not be prejudicial to the accused I do not intend taking account thereof. 29. It is manifest that the accused's version of the events is not supported by any of the State witnesses. His version is diametrically opposed to their's. He says that he was the victim of an attempted robbery by the deceased and some members of the group of youths. He also says that he was unarmed and that it was the deceased who was in possession of a firearm which the deceased had pointed at him. He thereupon grabbed the arm of the deceased and a struggle ensued during the course of which the deceased was shot and the firearm fall to the ground. He then picked up the firearm and ran away leaving the deceased lying on the ground. 30. The accused says that he was not in possession of the firearm, which is Exhibit No.1, prior to the night of the shooting but this is not borne out by the proved facts. The evidence of Bongani Goniwe establishes that the accused dispossessed him of the firearm even though he is unsure of the date. It is clear from all the evidence that this could only have occurred prior to the night of the shooting since the firearm was recovered from the accused by the police some six hours after the shooting. The evidence establishes further that the only
16 -16- person in possession of a firearm that evening was the accused. In my view, therefore, the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was already in possession of Exhibit no. 1 prior to his encountering the deceased and the others. The claim by the accused that he obtained possession of this firearm when it was dropped by the deceased is manifestly untrue. It should be noted that the deceased referred to a flywheel, which is a revolver, whereas it is clear the firearm is not a revolver. I reject the accused's version of how he obtained possession of Exhibit no The version which the accused provided during his testimony regarding the circumstances under which the firearm was recovered from him at the time of his arrest conflicts with the evidence of Inspector Molosi. As I have stated previously the testimony of Inspector Molosi was not disputed nor was his credibility as a witness placed in issue at any stage. The accused, on the other hand, was an unsatisfactory witness. While he may have answered questions promptly his replies in certain instances were evasive and at times non-sensical. This is illustrated by his assertion that when Bongani Goniwe heard that the police had found the firearm that Bongani had then alleged that the accused had taken it from him. However, he had never met Bongani Goniwe and did not know who he was. Similarly, he claimed that he had stored the firearm underneath the stone and not in the house as it was safer to do so and would be found when the police asked for it. 32. The accused's version is not merely improbable but is exposed as being
17 -17- untruthful by the proved facts. It is improbable that the accused would have concealed the firearm under a stone outside the house if he honestly intended handing over the firearm to the police. The evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that he attempted to conceal the weapon when the police arrived at his house. It is clear, too, that he did not hand the firearm to the police but that it was Inspector Molosi who had recovered it from its hiding place. The actions of the accused were not consistent with that of a person who was the victim of a robbery but indicative rather of someone who had committed a wrongful act and was now seeking to conceal his involvement therein. His explanation for not reporting to the police that he had been robbed is implausible, if not absurd. On the basis of the accused's version there was absolutely no reason for him to have feared or delayed in going to the police to report what had happened. After all, he had not committed any crime and had only sought to protect himself during the course of being robbed by a group of people, one of whom was armed with a firearm. It is clear that his decision not to report the incident to the police was due to the fact that he had tried to rob the deceased, and not vice versa, and more particularly, because he had unlawfully shot the deceased. It is for these reasons, too, that he tried to hide the firearm when the police arrived. After both counsel had addressed argument to the Court it came to the attention of the Court that the Post-Mortem Report had not been handed in as evidence. The report was thereupon handed in and received as Exhibit 'H'. After perusing
18 -18- the report the Court, in terms of s 186 of the CPA, required that Dr Dominic Thadathilankal John, who had conducted the post-mortem examination, be subpoenaed to testify as his evidence appeared to be essential for a just decision to be arrived at. The evidence of Dr John confirmed the findings in his report to the effect that the deceased had died as a result of a gunshot wound to the chest. The entrance wound was on the front of the right chest near to the armpit. The path of travel of the bullet was through the chest in a downwards direction with the bullet exiting at a spot on the right-hand side of the chest which was lower than the entrance wound on the left-hand side. 35. It emerged from cross-examination by both counsel, and questions from the Court, that since there was no gunpowder residue in the vicinity of the entrance wound that it was not possible to determine from what distance the fatal shot had been fired. Dr John was also not in a position to confirm whether there had been a scuffle or struggle between the deceased and the accused when the fatal shot was fired. It was clear, however, that from the position of the wounds and the direction of travel of the bullet that the shot was fired from a position which was either at the same height of the deceased's shoulder or slightly higher. 36. In presenting argument both counsel suggested that the medical findings supported the respective versions of the defence and the State. In my view, what the findings of Dr John, and his testimony in Court, reveal is that it is improbable that the firearm was in close contact with the body of the deceased when the shot was fired. Had this been the case Dr John would have expected
19 -19- to find some indication of gunpowder. At best his evidence is substantiation, but only of a very limited nature, for the evidence of Andile Patrick Ntengento to the effect that he had seen the accused point the firearm at some stage at the head or face of the deceased. It was also the evidence of Khaya Nkonyana that he had seen the firearm being pointed at the face of the deceased. Their evidence lends support to the opinion of Dr John that, in view of the trajectory of the bullet, the firearm would have been at shoulder height or slightly higher when the shot was fired. But, on the available evidence I am unable to make a specific finding in this regard. In any event, such a determination is not definitive of whether or not the accused fired the fatal shot. This determination rests on whether the Court accepts the State case or the version of the accused. 37. The Court also raised with the State whether the reference to s 39(1 )(l) of Act 79 of 1969 in count 2 was correct or not. The State informed the Court that this was an error and applied for count 2 to be amended by deleting the reference to s 39(1 )(l). This was not opposed by the defence and the amendment was granted. 38. The approach which is to be adopted in evaluating the evidence is set out in S v Hadebe and Others 1997 (2) SACR 641 at 645i-j and 646a-b where Marais AJ, judge of the Supreme Court of Appeal, quoted with approval the comments in Moshephu and Others v R ( ) LAC 57 at 59F-H: 'The question for determination is whether, in the light of all the evidence adduced at the trial, the guilt of the appellants was established beyond reasonable doubt. The breaking down of a body of evidence into its component parts is obviously a useful aid to a proper understanding
20 -20- and evaluation of it. But, in doing so, one must guard against a tendency to focus too intently upon the separate and individual parts of what is, after all, a mosaic of proof. Doubts about one aspect of the evidence led in a trial may arise when that aspect is viewed in isolation. Those doubts may be set at rest when it is evaluated again together with all the other available evidence. That is not to say that a broad and indulgent approach is appropriate when evaluating evidence. Far from it. There is no substitute for a detailed and critical examination of each and every component in a body of evidence. But, once that has been done, it is necessary to step back a pace and consider the mosaic as a whole. It that is not done, one may fail to see the wood for the trees.' As I have stated previously, I am mindful of the shortcomings in the evidence of the witnesses in certain respects. Ultimately, however, on the evidence as a whole I am satisfied that they have furnished the Court with the true version of what transpired when the deceased was shot. I do not consider the accused's story to be reasonably possibly true. On the basis of all the evidence it is manifestly false and I reject same. He has fabricated the story that he was the innocent victim of a robbery perpetrated by the deceased. The same applies in respect of his claim that Inspector Molosi together with Bongani Goniwe and the other witnesses have all conspired to implicate him falsely as having murdered Nkosinathi Gwebelelo Ngcayiya. There is manifestly no evidence of any conspiracy on the part of the witnesses. It is clear that it is not the witnesses who have lied in regard to the circumstances of the shooting but the accused. After an evaluation of all the evidence I am satisfied that the State has proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in respect of both counts. In the result, the accused is found guilty of the charges as set out in the
21 -21- indictment, namely: (a) On count 1 of the murder of Nkosinathi Gwebelelo Ngcayiya; and (b) On count 2 of a contravention of section 2 read with sections 1 and 39(2) of Act 75 of 1969, namely being in possession of an arm, described as a gunshot Browning pistol, without being the holder of a licence to possess such arm. Date: 10 May 2000 Heard on 17/4/2000, 18/4/200, 19/4/2000, 25/4/ /4/200, 2/5/2000, 8/5/2000 Judgment delivered on 10 May 2000 Counsel for the State Adv J G Kristafor Counsel for the Accused Adv S J Swartbooi Boniwe.jud
SIMPHIWE MABHUTI SONTSHANTSHA JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE: MTHATHA In the matter between CASE NO:121/08 THE STATE and SIMPHIWE MABHUTI SONTSHANTSHA Accused JUDGMENT PAKADE J: Background [1] The accused is charged
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 216 Filed: 03/31/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1811
Case: 1:13-cv-01851 Document #: 216 Filed: 03/31/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1811 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION BASSIL ABDELAL, Plaintiff, v. No. 13 C 1851 CITY
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT BISHO CASE NO: 326/98 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT BISHO CASE NO: 326/98 In the matter between:- MATATA ALFRED LUSANI Plaintiff and ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant JUDGMENT 1. On 23 October 1993 a motor vehicle driven by one Elliot Bushula
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED... DATE SIGNATURE ) CASE NUMBER: 13/45391 HEARD: 29 FEBRUARY
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT MARCUS NNDATENI MULAUDZI
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: 768/2015 In the matter between: MARCUS NNDATENI MULAUDZI APPELLANT and THE STATE RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Mulaudzi v The
More informationREPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK
REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA REPORTABLE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK Case No: CC 12/2011 In the matter between: THE STATE versus ABRAHAM ALFEUS Neutral citation: S v Alfeus (CC 16/2011) [2013]
More informationS19A0439. CARPENTER v. THE STATE. Benjamin Carpenter was tried by a DeKalb County jury and. convicted of murder and possession of a firearm during the
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: April 15, 2019 S19A0439. CARPENTER v. THE STATE. BLACKWELL, Justice. Benjamin Carpenter was tried by a DeKalb County jury and convicted of murder and possession
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A113296
Filed 4/25/08 P. v. Canada CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationHIGH COURT (BISHO) JUDGMENT. 1. The appellant who was accused no. 3 in the proceedings in the court a quo,
HIGH COURT (BISHO) CASE No. CA & R 21/2000 DUMISANIMBEBE Appellant and THE STATE Respondent JUDGMENT EBRAHIM J: 1. The appellant who was accused no. 3 in the proceedings in the court a quo, was convicted
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC07-610
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC07-610 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 3D05-39 TRACY McLIN, CIRCUIT CASE NO. 94-11235 -vs- Appellant, STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH
More informationMTSHENGISENI MABASA...ACCUSED
NOT REPORTABLE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO: 65/2011 DPP REF NO: JPV2011/0045 DATE:17/11/2011 In the matter between THE STATE and MTSHENGISENI MABASA...ACCUSED Criminal law trial indictment
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Williams, 2010-Ohio-893.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JULIUS WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 28, 2004 v No. 250029 Wayne Circuit Court MARVIN HOTCHKISS, JR., LC No. 03-002803-01 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationENTRY ORDER 2017 VT 37 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO APRIL TERM, 2017
ENTRY ORDER 2017 VT 37 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2017-108 APRIL TERM, 2017 State of Vermont } APPEALED FROM: } } v. } Superior Court, Rutland Unit, } Criminal Division } Peggy L. Shores } DOCKET NO. 235-2-17
More informationS16A0255. EDWARDS v. THE STATE. Phirronnius Edwards was tried by a Colquitt County jury and convicted
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: May 9, 2016 S16A0255. EDWARDS v. THE STATE. BLACKWELL, Justice. Phirronnius Edwards was tried by a Colquitt County jury and convicted of murder and the unlawful
More information110 File Number: Date of Release:
IN THE MATTER OF THE SERIOUS INJURY OF A MALE WHILE BEING APPREHENDED BY MEMBERS OF THE BURNABY RCMP IN THE CITY OF BURNABY, BRITISH COLUMBIA ON MARCH 20, 2015 DECISION OF THE CHIEF CIVILIAN DIRECTOR OF
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT: ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Criminal Appeal No. 357of 2013 Sri Rabindra Das Appellant -Versus- The State of Assam Respondent -BEFORE- HON
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No. 853 WDA 2011
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAMES BRADLEY, Appellant No. 853 WDA 2011 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationMULTI CHOICE QUESTIONS EVI301-A
MULTI CHOICE QUESTIONS EVI301-A 2010 Second Semester Assignment 1 Question 1 If the current South African law does not provide a solution to an evidentiary problem, our courts will first of all search
More informationMEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH
MEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH July 3, 2014 14-15 No Charges Approved in IIO Investigations Involving Police Service Dogs Victoria The Criminal Justice Branch (CJB), Ministry of Justice, announced
More informationTRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN. The State AND. Latchman Deosaran RULING. Friday January 28 th 2011
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CR NO. 114 OF 2008 BETWEEN The State AND Latchman Deosaran BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. HOLDIP Appearances: Mr. Jeron Joseph for the State Mr. Bindra
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) v. ) ID No. 9607013218 WCC ) KEVIN HILL, ) ) Defendant. ) Submitted: October 29, 2007 Decided: January
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) JUDGMENT
.. SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy delivered 08/6/17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
More information>> THE NEXT CASE ON THE DOCKET IS GARRETT VERSUS STATE OF FLORIDA. >> WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. >> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, MY NAME IS MEGAN LONG WITH
>> THE NEXT CASE ON THE DOCKET IS GARRETT VERSUS STATE OF FLORIDA. >> WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. >> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, MY NAME IS MEGAN LONG WITH THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS OF 2014
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION NON REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1382 1384 OF 2014 Bal Mukund Sharma @ Balmukund Chaudhry Etc., Etc....Appellants Versus The State of Bihar...Respondent
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State v. Allen, 2008-Ohio-700.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : v. : No. 07AP-473 (C.P.C. No. 05CR-6364) Dante Allen, : (REGULAR
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, CLINTON ANGWENYI OMUYA DOB: 10/31/1992 10729 CAVELL RD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55420 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District Prosecutor
More informationS12A0623. JACKSON v. THE STATE. Following a jury trial, Cecil Jackson, Jr. appeals his conviction for malice
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: April 24, 2012 S12A0623. JACKSON v. THE STATE. MELTON, Justice. Following a jury trial, Cecil Jackson, Jr. appeals his conviction for malice murder, aggravated
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT HARLEME L. LARRY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case Nos. 2D13-4610
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA NO KA-1116 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL MICHAEL G. DUNN, JR. FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * *
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS MICHAEL G. DUNN, JR. * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2012-KA-1116 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 491-522, SECTION
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 9, 2015 v No. 317282 Jackson Circuit Court TODD DOUGLAS ROBINSON, LC No. 12-003652-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationBENJAMIN LEE LILLY OPINION BY v. Record Nos , JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. November 5, 1999 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Present: All the Justices BENJAMIN LEE LILLY OPINION BY v. Record Nos. 972385, 972386 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. November 5, 1999 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
More informationMEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH
MEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH August 11, 2016 16-16 No Charges Approved in Vancouver Police Shooting Victoria - The Criminal Justice Branch (CJB), Ministry of Justice and Attorney General, announced
More informationPresent: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ., and Koontz, S.J.
Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ., and Koontz, S.J. CORDERO BERNARD ELLIS OPINION BY SENIOR JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. v. Record No. 100506 March 4, 2011 COMMONWEALTH
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) DIVISION ONE Respondent, ) ) No. 66331-3-I v. ) ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION EDWARD EARL COBB, ) ) Appellant. ) FILED: May 29, 2012
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs June 5, 2007
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs June 5, 2007 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANDRECO BOONE Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 05-06682 Chris Craft,
More informationCount 1: Murder, read with Section 51 and Schedule 2 of Act 105 of 1997
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL, DURBAN CASE NO. : CC 3/09 Umlazi CAS 983/12/08 In the matter between : STATE STATE and WELCOME MBONGENI HADEBE ACCUSED JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE KOOVERJEE AJ
More informationPRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND THE APPLICATION OF R. v. K.G.B.
PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND THE APPLICATION OF R. v. K.G.B. Brian D. Williston THE ORTHODOX RULE Until recently, the "orthodox rule" dictated that prior inconsistent statements made by a non-party
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 3, 2010 v No. 293142 Saginaw Circuit Court DONALD LEE TOLBERT III, LC No. 07-029363-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More information4. RELEVANCE. A. The Relevance Rule
4. RELEVANCE A. The Relevance Rule The most basic rule of evidence is that it must be relevant to the case. Irrelevant evidence should be excluded. If we are trying a bank robbery case, the witnesses should
More informationVIEWS. Communication No. 332/1988
UNITED NATIONS CCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Distr. RESTRICTED* CCPR/C/50/D/332/1988 5 April 1994 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Fiftieth session VIEWS Communication
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 9, 2014
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 9, 2014 NATHANIEL CARSON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2009-A-260
More informationPresent: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., and Russell and Koontz, S.JJ.
Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., and Russell and Koontz, S.JJ. MARQUIS DEVON BYRD OPINION BY v. Record No. 101289 SENIOR JUSTICE CHARLES S. RUSSELL April 21, 2011 GENE M. JOHNSON,
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs July 8, 2014
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs July 8, 2014 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANDRE WILSON Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 12-01044 Lee V. Coffee,
More informationDECISION OF THE CHIEF CIVILIAN DIRECTOR OF THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE
IN THE MATTER OF THE SERIOUS INJURY OF A MALE WHILE BEING TAKEN INTO THE CUSTODY OF THE RCMP IN THE CITY OF SALMON ARM, BRITISH COLUMBIA ON JANUARY 30, 2017 DECISION OF THE CHIEF CIVILIAN DIRECTOR OF THE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 7/25/11 P. v. Hurtado CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, VYSEAN IVORY JOHNSON DOB: 09/01/1988 3917 26TH AVE S Minneapolis, MN 55406 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District Prosecutor
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2005 BETWEEN: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Appellant AND ISRAEL HERNANDEZ ORELLANO Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : ALEXIS DELACRUZ, : : Appellant : No. 547 EDA 2014 Appeal
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH : No. CR-1486-2013 : vs. : CRIMINAL DIVISION : : ROCKY D. WOOD, : Motion to Suppress/Motion to Dismiss Defendant : OPINION AND
More informationMEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH
MEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH October 28, 2013 13-29 No Criminal Charge Approved in the Death of Paul Boyd Victoria The Criminal Justice Branch of the Ministry of Justice announced today that
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL) THE QUEEN AND SHAM SANGANOO
. THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL) SAINT LUCIA CRIMINAL CASES NOS. SLUCRD 2007/0653, 0669 & 0670 BETWEEN: THE QUEEN AND SHAM SANGANOO Claimant Defendant Appearances:
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) High Court Ref No: 13858 Goodwood Case No: C1658/2012 In the matter between: STATE And RAYMOND TITUS ACCUSED Coram: BINNS-WARD & ROGERS
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape Division) High Court Review Case No: 30/08 Magistrate Case No: 1149/2007 Date delivered:
Circulate to Magistrates: Yes / No Reportable: Yes / No Circulate to Judges: Yes / No IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape Division) High Court Review Case No: 30/08 Magistrate Case No: 1149/2007
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA REPORTABLE KWAZULU-NATAL, DURBAN In the matter of: CASE NO: CC69/09 THE STATE Versus 1. MZWANDILE MKHIZE 2. THAMSANQA KWEYAMA 3. SANDILE SHABALALA 4. MFUNDO GABELA 5.
More informationCriminal Appeal No. 16 Appellate Division of the High Court January 15, YONA NGERUANGEL, Appellant
H.C.T.T. App. Div. TRUST TERRITORY REPORTS Nov. 25, 1959 evidence obtained in violation of other provisions of law, they should follow the more generally accepted rule and admit the evidence, provided
More informationCASE NO. 1D Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ROBERT DALE PURIFOY, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D14-4007
More informationIn the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION III STATE OF MISSOURI, ) No. ED100873 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the City of St. Louis vs. ) ) Honorable Elizabeth Byrne
More informationGENERAL CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS. Members of the jury, it is now time for me to tell you the law that applies to
GENERAL CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS Members of the jury, it is now time for me to tell you the law that applies to this case. As I mentioned at the beginning of the trial, you must follow the law as I state it
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 40539-3-II Respondent, UNPUBLISHED OPINION v. MARCUS CLAYTON, Appellant. Armstrong, J. Marcus Clayton appeals his
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 28, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-1903 Lower Tribunal No. 94-33949 B Franchot Brown,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT : MTHATHA CASE NO. 1299/06. In the matter between: and THE MINSTER OF SAFETY JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT : MTHATHA CASE NO. 1299/06 In the matter between: THANDILE FUNDA Plaintiff and THE MINSTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY Defendant JUDGMENT MILLER, J.:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed November 10, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Fae Hoover-Grinde,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 0-485 / 09-0150 Filed November 10, 2010 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JACOVAN DERONTE BUSH, Defendant-Appellant. Judge. Appeal from the Iowa District Court
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. COMMONWEALTH OF : NO ,880 PENNSYLVANIA : : CRIMINAL vs. : : : Relief Act Petition
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF : NO. 03-10,880 PENNSYLVANIA : : CRIMINAL vs. : : MICHAEL W. McCLOSKEY, : Defemdant s Amended Post Conviction Defendant : Relief
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR1439/15 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES Applicant and R M MASHIGO First Respondent SAFETY AND SECURITY SECTORAL
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20171206 Docket: CR 15-01-35066 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Ajak Cited as: 2017 MBQB 202 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: ) APPEARANCES: ) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) Libby Standil
More informationANTHONY ROMANAHENG MODIKOE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY J U D G M E N T
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) NOT REPORTABLE Case No.: 2927/2010 Date heard: 27-30 August 2012 Date delivered: 13 December 2012 In the matter between: ANTHONY ROMANAHENG
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 23, 2009
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 23, 2009 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIE DOUGLAS JOHNSON Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 87077 Mary Beth
More informationJuvenile Jurisdiction
Juvenile Jurisdiction STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. BARRY D. LOUKAITIS, Appellant. No. 17007-1-III, COURT OF APPEALS OF WASHINGTON, DIVISION THREE, PANEL FIVE, 1999 Wash. App., November 16, 1999,
More informationSIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE
SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...3 TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Title 1, Chapter 38...3 TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE Article I: General Provisions...4 Article IV: Relevancy
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 2000 Session. STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ROSALIND MARIE JOHNSON and DONNA YVETTE McCOY
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 2000 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ROSALIND MARIE JOHNSON and DONNA YVETTE McCOY Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County Nos.
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, ANTHONY LAMONT FOOTE DOB: 08/05/1992 608 SELBY AVE #4 St. Paul, MN 55101 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District Prosecutor
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs at Knoxville October 30, 2018
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs at Knoxville October 30, 2018 01/04/2019 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DELMONTAE GODWIN Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 24, 2013 v No. 304163 Wayne Circuit Court CRAIG MELVIN JACKSON, LC No. 10-010029-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationTHE ANTHONY GRAINGER INQUIRY OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF Q9
THE ANTHONY GRAINGER INQUIRY OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF Q9 1. On Saturday 3 March 2012 Q9, a highly trained specialist and experienced firearms officer, shot and killed Anthony Grainger during a pre-planned
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Worley, 2011-Ohio-2779.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94590 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. PEREZ WORLEY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 15, 2005 v No. 251008 Wayne Circuit Court TERRY DEJUAN HOLLIS, LC No. 02-013849-01 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationTrial Date and Time. In some cases, the Police Department and the defendant will reach a plea agreement in lieu of going to trial.
Trial Date and Time This dates and times of court trials are set by the Clerk of Court's office at the Portsmouth District Court. The Clerk sends an order of notice to the Police Department and issues
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,132 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,132 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. AZUCENA GARCIA-FERNIZA, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Saline
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. Present: Judges Willis, Annunziata and Senior Judge Coleman Argued at Richmond, Virginia
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Willis, Annunziata and Senior Judge Coleman Argued at Richmond, Virginia RONNIE ANTJUAN VAUGHN OPINION BY v. Record No. 2694-99-2 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR.
More information2011 PA Super 108. Appeal from the Order entered April 14, 2010, Court of Common Pleas, Berks County, Criminal Division at No. CP-06-CR
2011 PA Super 108 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : v. : : WILLIAM R. LANDIS, JR., : : Appellee : No. 826 MDA 2010 Appeal from the Order entered April
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. THE STATE and [T.] [J ] [M..] Accused 1 [M.] [R.] [M.] Accused 2
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2012
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2012 Opinion filed April 25, 2012. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D10-1361 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No Filed November 21, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John D.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 17-1888 Filed November 21, 2018 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SEAN MICHAEL FREESE, Defendant-Appellant. Judge. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, DEJON FRAZIER DOB: 01/22/1997 14729 CHICAGO AV #6 BURNSVILLE, MN 55306 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District Prosecutor
More informationSomeone Must Be Lying
GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2015 Someone Must Be Lying Stephen A. Saltzburg George Washington University Law School, SSALTZ@law.gwu.edu Follow this and additional works
More informationv No Kalamazoo Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED July 13, 2017 v No. 332585 Kalamazoo Circuit Court DANTE LEMONT JOHNSON, LC No.
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Wright State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, SAMARA LEIGH JUHL DOB: 01/27/1994 7734 Lancaster Avenue NE Otsego, MN 55301 Defendant. Prosecutor File No. Court File No. District
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 21 March 2017
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA16-988 Filed: 21 March 2017 Wake County, Nos. 15 CRS 215729, 215731-33 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BREYON BRADFORD, Defendant. Appeal by defendant from judgments
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN TERRANCE STEPHAN BROWN
REPORTABLE THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN In the matter between: C AS E N O : C C 5 4 / 2 0 1 4 THE STATE Versus TERRANCE STEPHAN BROWN
More information2013 PA Super 164 OPINION BY WECHT, J.: FILED JULY 02, Dustin Scott [ Appellant ] appeals the judgment of sentence imposed
2013 PA Super 164 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DUSTIN SCOTT Appellant No. 1710 MDA 2012 Appeal from the Order Entered of September 25, 2012, In the Court
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DESMOND D. SANDERS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D17-2489 [ September 20, 2018 ] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the
More informationMINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES JUDGMENT. [1] In accordance to an agreement which was reached between the
Not Reportable IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION PORT ELIZABETH In the matter between: Case No: 3509/2012 Date Heard: 15/08/2016 Date Delivered: 1/09/2016 ANDILE SILATHA Plaintiff
More informationMEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH
MEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH April 28, 2016 16-09 No Charges Approved for Force Used in Arrest by Vancouver Police Victoria - The Criminal Justice Branch (CJB), Ministry of Justice, announced
More informationS08A0002. MORRIS v. THE STATE. Following a jury trial, Alfred Morris was convicted of felony murder and
FINAL COPY 284 Ga. 1 S08A0002. MORRIS v. THE STATE. Melton, Justice. Following a jury trial, Alfred Morris was convicted of felony murder and various other offenses in connection with the armed robbery
More informationVIEWS. Distr. RESTRICTED */ CCPR/C/47/D/282/ May Original: ENGLISH. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Forty-seventh session
Distr. RESTRICTED */ CCPR/C/47/D/282/1988 12 May 1993 Original: ENGLISH HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Forty-seventh session VIEWS Communication No. 282/1988 Submitted by: Leaford Smith [represented by counsel]
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State v. Woods, 2014-Ohio-2375.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J. :
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
REL: 04/27/2012 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More information