S v Makuhula (377/90) [1992] ZASCA 30 (19 March 1992)

S v Makuhula (377/90) [1992] ZASCA 30 (19 March 1992)

The court found that the evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant's actions caused the death of the deceased or that he formed a common purpose to murder at the relevant time. The medical evidence was inconclusive as to which wound caused death, and there was no proof that the appellant's attack hastened or contributed to the death. The trial court did not find a common purpose to murder at the time of the second attack. Accordingly, the conviction for murder could not stand and was replaced by a conviction for attempted murder.

Citation
[1992] ZASCA 30
Parties
Appellant: Peter Makuhula; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 1992
Case Number
377/90
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed to the extent that the conviction for murder is replaced with attempted murder and the sentence is reduced.
Judges
Nestadt, Milne, Howie
Legal Topics
Murder, Attempted Murder, Common Purpose, Causation, Extenuating Circumstances
Criminal Law Murder Attempted Murder Common Purpose Causation Extenuating Circumstances

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

Parties

Peter Makuhula

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's actions caused the death of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant formed a common purpose to murder at the relevant time.
  3. 3 Whether the conviction for murder should stand or be replaced by attempted murder.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant's actions caused the death of the deceased or that he formed a common purpose to murder at the relevant time. The medical evidence was inconclusive as to which wound caused death, and there was no proof that the appellant's attack hastened or contributed to the death. The trial court did not find a common purpose to murder at the time of the second attack. Accordingly, the conviction for murder could not stand and was replaced by a conviction for attempted murder.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed to the extent that the conviction for murder is replaced with attempted murder and the sentence is reduced.

Orders

  • The conviction of murder is altered to a conviction for attempted murder.
  • A sentence of 4 years' imprisonment is substituted, to run from the date of this judgment.