S v Marotholi and Others (93/87) [1987] ZASCA 89 (21 September 1987)

S v Marotholi and Others (93/87) [1987] ZASCA 89 (21 September 1987)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court had properly considered all relevant factors in sentencing, including the appellants' youth and lack of previous convictions, but found that the seriousness and brutality of the crimes justified the imposition of the death penalty. The court found no evidence of improper or unreasonable exercise of discretion by the trial court. Furthermore, the trial court's finding of no mitigating circumstances was supported by the evidence and did not amount to a misdirection or irregularity. The appeals against both conviction and sentence were dismissed.

Citation
[1987] ZASCA 89
Parties
Appellant: Ishmael M Marotholi; Appellant: Zacharia M Kodisang; Appellant: Richard M Buzakwe; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 September 1987
Case Number
93/87
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
The appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.
Judges
Viljoen, Jacobs, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Housebreaking With Intent to Rob, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Murder, Sentencing Discretion, Mitigating Circumstances
Criminal Law Housebreaking With Intent to Rob Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Murder Sentencing Discretion Mitigating 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ishmael M Marotholi

Appellant

Zacharia M Kodisang

Appellant

Richard M Buzakwe

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants on charges of housebreaking with intent to rob, robbery with aggravating circumstances, and murder.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court exercised its sentencing discretion improperly in imposing the death penalty for both counts.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in finding no mitigating circumstances in respect of the murder charge.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court had properly considered all relevant factors in sentencing, including the appellants' youth and lack of previous convictions, but found that the seriousness and brutality of the crimes justified the imposition of the death penalty. The court found no evidence of improper or unreasonable exercise of discretion by the trial court. Furthermore, the trial court's finding of no mitigating circumstances was supported by the evidence and did not amount to a misdirection or irregularity. The appeals against both conviction and sentence were dismissed.

Court Disposition

The appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeals are dismissed.
  • The convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court are confirmed.