S v Morgan (516/94) [1996] ZASCA 51 (14 May 1996)

S v Morgan (516/94) [1996] ZASCA 51 (14 May 1996)

The court found that the appellant's claim of self-defence was not reasonably possibly true. The deceased was unarmed, and the physical confrontation had ceased before the shooting. The appellant had ample opportunity to ascertain whether the deceased was armed, and the evidence did not support the assertion that the deceased reached for a firearm. The subsequent shots fired at the deceased while he was prone were wholly inconsistent with self-defence. The appellant's claim of reflexive shooting and lack of criminal capacity was rejected as opportunistic and unsupported by credible expert evidence. The trial court's findings on credibility and reliability of witnesses were upheld. There...

Citation
[1996] ZASCA 51
Parties
Appellant: Charles Morgan; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 May 1996
Case Number
516/94
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction; Purported Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed. No proper appeal against sentence before the court; sentence affirmed.
Judges
Van Heerden, Smalberger, Marais
Legal Topics
Murder, Self Defence, Criminal Capacity, Sentencing, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Murder Self Defence Criminal Capacity Sentencing Credibility of Witnesses

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

Parties

Charles Morgan

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction; Purported Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant acted in self-defence when he shot and killed the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant lacked criminal capacity at the time of the shooting.
  3. 3 Whether the conviction for murder was justified on the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant's claim of self-defence was not reasonably possibly true. The deceased was unarmed, and the physical confrontation had ceased before the shooting. The appellant had ample opportunity to ascertain whether the deceased was armed, and the evidence did not support the assertion that the deceased reached for a firearm. The subsequent shots fired at the deceased while he was prone were wholly inconsistent with self-defence. The appellant's claim of reflexive shooting and lack of criminal capacity was rejected as opportunistic and unsupported by credible expert evidence. The trial court's findings on credibility and reliability of witnesses were upheld. There...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed. No proper appeal against sentence before the court; sentence affirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
  • No appeal against sentence is properly before the court.