Maarohanye and Another v S (A378/2013) [2014] ZAGPJHC 251; 2015 (2) SA 73 (GJ); 2015 (1) SACR 337 (GJ) (8 October 2014)

Maarohanye and Another v S (A378/2013) [2014] ZAGPJHC 251; 2015 (2) SA 73 (GJ); 2015 (1) SACR 337 (GJ) (8 October 2014)

The trial court erred in finding that dolus eventualis was established. The evidence showed that the appellants' judgment was impaired by drug-induced euphoria, leading them to believe no collision would occur and that other road users would make way for them. This state of mind is inconsistent with the appreciation and reconciliation required for dolus eventualis. Both elements of dolus eventualis were absent; the appellants did not foresee the possibility of causing death or injury and did not reconcile themselves to such consequences. The correct conviction is culpable homicide, not murder. Attempted murder convictions are set aside as there is no offence of attempted culpable...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPJHC 251
Parties
Appellant: Katlego M Maarohanye; Appellant: Themba Tshabalala; Respondent: The State
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 October 2014
Case Number
A378/2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From Regional Court Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part. Murder and attempted murder convictions set aside and replaced with culpable homicide. Sentences reduced to ten years imprisonment, two years suspended, antedated to 16 October 2012.
Judges
D Mlambo, GSS Maluleke, C Pretorius
Legal Topics
Culpable Homicide, Dolus Eventualis, Reckless Driving, Drug Influence, Sentencing Principles
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Culpable Homicide Dolus Eventualis Reckless Driving Drug Influence Sentencing Principles

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Katlego M Maarohanye

Appellant

Themba Tshabalala

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From Regional Court Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants of murder and attempted murder based on dolus eventualis.
  2. 2 Whether the influence of drugs on the appellants negated the requisite mens rea for murder.
  3. 3 What the appropriate convictions and sentences should be given the facts established.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial court erred in finding that dolus eventualis was established. The evidence showed that the appellants' judgment was impaired by drug-induced euphoria, leading them to believe no collision would occur and that other road users would make way for them. This state of mind is inconsistent with the appreciation and reconciliation required for dolus eventualis. Both elements of dolus eventualis were absent; the appellants did not foresee the possibility of causing death or injury and did not reconcile themselves to such consequences. The correct conviction is culpable homicide, not murder. Attempted murder convictions are set aside as there is no offence of attempted culpable...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part. Murder and attempted murder convictions set aside and replaced with culpable homicide. Sentences reduced to ten years imprisonment, two years suspended, antedated to 16 October 2012.

Orders

  • The appeal against the conviction for driving under the influence of a drug having a narcotic effect is dismissed.
  • The appeals against the remaining convictions and sentences are upheld.