Peterson v S (CA&R196/2015) [2015] ZAECGHC 130 (29 October 2015)

Peterson v S (CA&R196/2015) [2015] ZAECGHC 130 (29 October 2015)

The court found that the appellant, a person of normal intelligence and not under the influence of alcohol, acted deliberately when she picked up a dangerous knife and stabbed the deceased in a vulnerable area of his body. The evidence of impartial witnesses indicated that the deceased was not advancing on the appellant and posed no further threat. The appellant's claim of fear was rejected as an afterthought. The court inferred that the appellant subjectively foresaw the possibility of death resulting from her conduct and reconciled herself with that possibility, satisfying the requirements for dolus eventualis. Therefore, the conviction for murder was correct.

Citation
[2015] ZAECGHC 130
Parties
Appellant: Michallette Peterson; Respondent: The State
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 October 2015
Case Number
CA&R196/2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction for murder confirmed.
Judges
J M Roberson, N Beshe
Legal Topics
Dolus Eventualis, Murder, Culpable Homicide, Subjective Intention
Criminal Law Dolus Eventualis Murder Culpable Homicide Subjective Intention

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michallette Peterson

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant possessed the requisite intention for murder in the form of dolus eventualis.
  2. 2 Whether the conviction should have been for culpable homicide rather than murder.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant, a person of normal intelligence and not under the influence of alcohol, acted deliberately when she picked up a dangerous knife and stabbed the deceased in a vulnerable area of his body. The evidence of impartial witnesses indicated that the deceased was not advancing on the appellant and posed no further threat. The appellant's claim of fear was rejected as an afterthought. The court inferred that the appellant subjectively foresaw the possibility of death resulting from her conduct and reconciled herself with that possibility, satisfying the requirements for dolus eventualis. Therefore, the conviction for murder was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction for murder confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.