S v Mathlare (389/99) [2000] ZASCA 186 (29 September 2000)

S v Mathlare (389/99) [2000] ZASCA 186 (29 September 2000)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the conduct of the appellant's legal representative during cross-examination amounted to an unequivocal informal admission that the blood samples analysed by the expert were those of the appellant, the complainant, and her child. The court found that, in the context of the trial and the absence of any challenge to the premise of the expert's evidence, there was no need for formal proof of the origin of the blood samples. The expert evidence established a 99.04% probability that the appellant was the biological father of the child, and the appellant's genotype corresponded with that of the child. The court concluded that the State had proved its case...

Citation
[2000] ZASCA 186
Parties
Appellant: Jonas Mathlare; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 2000
Case Number
389/99
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.
Judges
Marais, Scott, Zulman
Legal Topics
Admissions in Criminal Trial, Dna Evidence, Cross Examination, Informal Admissions
Criminal Law Admissions in Criminal Trial Dna Evidence Cross Examination Informal Admissions

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonas Mathlare

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether admissions can be deduced from questions put in cross-examination by the accused's legal representative.
  2. 2 Whether the State proved beyond reasonable doubt that the blood samples analysed were those of the appellant, the complainant, and her child.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the conduct of the appellant's legal representative during cross-examination amounted to an unequivocal informal admission that the blood samples analysed by the expert were those of the appellant, the complainant, and her child. The court found that, in the context of the trial and the absence of any challenge to the premise of the expert's evidence, there was no need for formal proof of the origin of the blood samples. The expert evidence established a 99.04% probability that the appellant was the biological father of the child, and the appellant's genotype corresponded with that of the child. The court concluded that the State had proved its case...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The conviction and sentence are confirmed.