S v Mashimbye (56/94) [1995] ZASCA 12 (14 March 1995)

S v Mashimbye (56/94) [1995] ZASCA 12 (14 March 1995)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had the necessary intent to kill the complainant, either by dolus directus or dolus eventualis. The evidence did not establish that the appellant was aware of the complainant's presence or that he subjectively foresaw the possibility of striking him. Material gaps in the State's case, including unclear witness accounts and lack of a scene plan, prevented a finding of intent. However, the appellant's conduct was negligent, as he fired a shot with a horizontal trajectory in circumstances where injury to another was foreseeable. The conviction for attempted murder was set aside and...

Citation
[1995] ZASCA 12
Parties
Appellant: Josias Mashimbye; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 March 1995
Case Number
56/94
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Conviction for attempted murder set aside and replaced with conviction for contravention of section 39(1)(1) of the Arms and Ammunition Act. Sentence of five years imprisonment set aside and substituted with a fine of R2 500 or eight months imprisonment. Order for return of firearm to Department of...
Judges
Nestadt, Eksteen, Nienaber
Legal Topics
Attempted Murder, Mens Rea, Dolus Eventualis, Negligence, Arms and Ammunition Act
Criminal Law Attempted Murder Mens Rea Dolus Eventualis Negligence Arms and Ammunition Act

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

Parties

Josias Mashimbye

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had the necessary intent (mens rea) to be convicted of attempted murder.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence established dolus directus or dolus eventualis.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's conduct amounted to negligence under the Arms and Ammunition Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had the necessary intent to kill the complainant, either by dolus directus or dolus eventualis. The evidence did not establish that the appellant was aware of the complainant's presence or that he subjectively foresaw the possibility of striking him. Material gaps in the State's case, including unclear witness accounts and lack of a scene plan, prevented a finding of intent. However, the appellant's conduct was negligent, as he fired a shot with a horizontal trajectory in circumstances where injury to another was foreseeable. The conviction for attempted murder was set aside and...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Conviction for attempted murder set aside and replaced with conviction for contravention of section 39(1)(1) of the Arms and Ammunition Act. Sentence of five years imprisonment set aside and substituted with a fine of R2 500 or eight months imprisonment. Order for return of firearm to Department of...

Orders

  • The conviction for attempted murder is set aside.
  • The sentence of five years imprisonment is set aside.