S v Bartleson en 'n Ander (705/91, 564/91) [1992] ZASCA 202 (23 November 1992)

S v Bartleson en 'n Ander (705/91, 564/91) [1992] ZASCA 202 (23 November 1992)

The court found that the evidence of the State's eyewitnesses was credible and corroborated in all material respects, while the appellants' versions were implausible and contradicted by objective facts. The appellants acted together with a common purpose and direct intent to kill the deceased, as demonstrated by their coordinated attack and the nature of the injuries inflicted. The court considered the appellants' extensive criminal records, lack of remorse, and the brutality of the offence as aggravating factors. Mitigating factors such as possible intoxication and the context of gang rivalry were given little weight. The court concluded that the death sentence was the only appropriate...

Citation
[1992] ZASCA 202
Parties
Appellant: Victor Lee Bartleson; Appellant: Noel Donald Samuels; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 November 1992
Case Number
705/91, 564/91
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence After Reopening of Trial
Outcome
The appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.
Judges
Botha, Grosskopf F H, Howie
Legal Topics
Murder, Dolus Directus, Sentencing, Common Purpose, Credibility of Witnesses, Mitigating and Aggravating Factors
Criminal Law Murder Dolus Directus Sentencing Common Purpose Credibility of Witnesses Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victor Lee Bartleson

Appellant

Noel Donald Samuels

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence After Reopening of Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were correctly convicted of murder on the basis of common purpose.
  2. 2 Whether the death sentence was the only appropriate punishment in the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence of the State witnesses was credible and reliable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence of the State's eyewitnesses was credible and corroborated in all material respects, while the appellants' versions were implausible and contradicted by objective facts. The appellants acted together with a common purpose and direct intent to kill the deceased, as demonstrated by their coordinated attack and the nature of the injuries inflicted. The court considered the appellants' extensive criminal records, lack of remorse, and the brutality of the offence as aggravating factors. Mitigating factors such as possible intoxication and the context of gang rivalry were given little weight. The court concluded that the death sentence was the only appropriate...

Court Disposition

The appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.

Orders

  • The convictions and death sentences of both appellants are confirmed.
  • No order as to costs.