Modise v S (A24/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 173 (26 September 2013)

Modise v S (A24/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 173 (26 September 2013)

The appellate court found that the trial court correctly rejected the appellant's versions on both counts as not reasonably possibly true. The evidence established that the appellant's actions on the first count were not consistent with self-defence but rather with an intent to kill, justifying the conviction for attempted murder. On the second count, although the complainant and her nephew's evidence was credible and corroborated, the totality of evidence did not support a finding of intent to kill, but rather intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The trial court misdirected itself in convicting the appellant of attempted murder on the second count, and the conviction was substituted...

Citation
[2013] ZAFSHC 173
Parties
Appellant: Sabata Moses Modise; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 September 2013
Case Number
A24/2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal partially upheld. Conviction and sentence on first count confirmed. Conviction on second count set aside and substituted with assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm; sentence confirmed.
Judges
L J Lekale, J P Daffue
Legal Topics
Attempted Murder, Assault With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm, Self Defence, Sentencing Principles
Criminal Law Attempted Murder Assault With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm Self Defence 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sabata Moses Modise

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of attempted murder on both counts.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence supported a conviction of attempted murder or only assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences imposed were appropriate and justified in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that the trial court correctly rejected the appellant's versions on both counts as not reasonably possibly true. The evidence established that the appellant's actions on the first count were not consistent with self-defence but rather with an intent to kill, justifying the conviction for attempted murder. On the second count, although the complainant and her nephew's evidence was credible and corroborated, the totality of evidence did not support a finding of intent to kill, but rather intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The trial court misdirected itself in convicting the appellant of attempted murder on the second count, and the conviction was substituted...

Court Disposition

Appeal partially upheld. Conviction and sentence on first count confirmed. Conviction on second count set aside and substituted with assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm; sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • The conviction and sentence in respect of charge number 1 are confirmed.
  • The conviction in respect of charge number 2 is set aside and substituted with a conviction of assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.