Mulaudzi v S (768/2015) [2016] ZASCA 70 (20 May 2016)

Mulaudzi v S (768/2015) [2016] ZASCA 70 (20 May 2016)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court committed several misdirections, including failing to evaluate the evidence in its entirety and neglecting the countervailing evidence of the appellant. The only incriminating evidence against the appellant was that of the first accused, who was both an accomplice and a single witness. The trial court failed to apply the cautionary rule required for such evidence and did not seek corroboration implicating the appellant. The first accused was found to be untruthful in material respects and sought to exonerate himself at the expense of the appellant. The appellant's version was not inherently improbable and should not have been rejected...

Citation
[2016] ZASCA 70
Parties
Appellant: Marcus Nndateni Mulaudzi; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 2016
Case Number
768/2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.
Judges
Theron, Petse, Willis
Legal Topics
Accomplice Evidence, Single Witness Rule, Murder, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Cautionary Rule, Onus of Proof
Criminal Law Accomplice Evidence Single Witness Rule Murder Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Cautionary Rule Onus of Proof

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marcus Nndateni Mulaudzi

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of murder and robbery where the only material evidence was that of an accomplice and single witness found to be untruthful and whose evidence was not corroborated.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court properly evaluated the evidence of the appellant and the first accused.
  3. 3 Whether the cautionary rule applicable to accomplice evidence and single witnesses was correctly applied.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court committed several misdirections, including failing to evaluate the evidence in its entirety and neglecting the countervailing evidence of the appellant. The only incriminating evidence against the appellant was that of the first accused, who was both an accomplice and a single witness. The trial court failed to apply the cautionary rule required for such evidence and did not seek corroboration implicating the appellant. The first accused was found to be untruthful in material respects and sought to exonerate himself at the expense of the appellant. The appellant's version was not inherently improbable and should not have been rejected...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The convictions and related sentences are set aside.