S v Mokoena (325/1983) [1984] ZASCA 28 (27 March 1984)

S v Mokoena (325/1983) [1984] ZASCA 28 (27 March 1984)

The court found that there was no credible evidence that the appellant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the offences. The testimonies of the co-accused, accepted by the trial court, established that the appellant was sober. The argument that the murders were committed without premeditation was rejected, as the appellant and his accomplices had set out with the intention to rob, and the killings occurred in the execution of that plan. The court held that the absence of premeditation did not mitigate the gravity of the offences. The application for leave to appeal should have been refused as there were no reasonable prospects of success. Accordingly, the appeal against both...

Citation
[1984] ZASCA 28
Parties
Appellant: Richard Mokoena; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 1984
Case Number
325/1983
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Judges
J.J.F. Hefer, Joubert, Viljoen
Legal Topics
Murder, Mitigating Circumstances, Intoxication, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Murder Mitigating Circumstances Intoxication Appeal Procedure

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Mokoena

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's conviction for two counts of murder was correct.
  2. 2 Whether there were any mitigating circumstances justifying a lesser sentence than the death penalty.
  3. 3 Whether intoxication played a role in the commission of the offences.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no credible evidence that the appellant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the offences. The testimonies of the co-accused, accepted by the trial court, established that the appellant was sober. The argument that the murders were committed without premeditation was rejected, as the appellant and his accomplices had set out with the intention to rob, and the killings occurred in the execution of that plan. The court held that the absence of premeditation did not mitigate the gravity of the offences. The application for leave to appeal should have been refused as there were no reasonable prospects of success. Accordingly, the appeal against both...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.