S v Jenniker and Another (563/92) [1993] ZASCA 175 (22 November 1993)

S v Jenniker and Another (563/92) [1993] ZASCA 175 (22 November 1993)

The appellate court found that the trial court correctly accepted the evidence of the eyewitnesses, supported by fingerprint evidence, that accused 1 possessed and used the firearm to shoot the deceased. The confession by accused 3, even if admitted for accused 1's benefit, was repudiated and thus of no evidentiary value. The court held that all accused acted with a common purpose to rob the liquor store and that the facts supported the inference that they foresaw the possibility of lethal violence, establishing dolus eventualis for murder. The sentences imposed were not shown to be inappropriate or the result of a misdirection. Accordingly, the appeals against conviction and sentence by...

Citation
[1993] ZASCA 175
Parties
Appellant: Ronald Jenniker; Appellant: Moegamat Phaldien Abrahams; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 November 1993
Case Number
563/92
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals by both accused against conviction and sentence dismissed.
Judges
Nestadt, Vivier, Arr, Van Coller
Legal Topics
Common Purpose, Murder, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Admissibility of Confessions, Dolus Eventualis
Criminal Law Common Purpose Murder Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Admissibility of Confessions Dolus Eventualis

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Jenniker

Appellant

Moegamat Phaldien Abrahams

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in finding that accused 1 was the person who possessed and used the firearm to shoot the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court correctly found that accused 3 was a party to a common purpose to rob and to kill.
  3. 3 Whether the confession by accused 3 was admissible and of evidentiary value for accused 1's defence.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that the trial court correctly accepted the evidence of the eyewitnesses, supported by fingerprint evidence, that accused 1 possessed and used the firearm to shoot the deceased. The confession by accused 3, even if admitted for accused 1's benefit, was repudiated and thus of no evidentiary value. The court held that all accused acted with a common purpose to rob the liquor store and that the facts supported the inference that they foresaw the possibility of lethal violence, establishing dolus eventualis for murder. The sentences imposed were not shown to be inappropriate or the result of a misdirection. Accordingly, the appeals against conviction and sentence by...

Court Disposition

Appeals by both accused against conviction and sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeals of appellant 1 and appellant 2 against their convictions and sentences are dismissed.