S v Nofomela (161/91) [1991] ZASCA 180; 1992 (1) SA 740 (AD); (28 November 1991)

S v Nofomela (161/91) [1991] ZASCA 180; 1992 (1) SA 740 (AD); (28 November 1991)

The court held that the requirements for admitting further evidence on appeal, as set out in S v de Jager and section 316(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, must guide applications under section 19(12)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The appellant failed to satisfy these requirements: there was no reasonable possibility that the evidence of provocation and psychological desensitization would have been presented at trial if the new test had applied, given his persistent denial of guilt and lack of credible explanation for withholding the evidence. The proposed evidence was not likely to be accepted as true, nor would it reasonably lead to a different sentence. The court...

Citation
[1991] ZASCA 180
Parties
Appellant: Almond Nofomela; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 1991
Case Number
161/91
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence Following Panel Review Under Criminal Law Amendment Act 107 of 1990
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; sentence of death confirmed.
Judges
Hefer, Nienaber, Preiss
Legal Topics
Death Sentence Review, Mitigating and Aggravating Factors, Admission of Further Evidence, Criminal Procedure Act, Onus of Proof, Rehabilitation
Criminal Law Death Sentence Review Mitigating and Aggravating Factors Admission of Further Evidence Criminal Procedure Act Onus of Proof Rehabilitation

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Almond Nofomela

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence Following Panel Review Under Criminal Law Amendment Act 107 of 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant should be permitted to lead further evidence on sentence under s 19(12)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 107 of 1990.
  2. 2 Whether the new evidence proposed by the appellant meets the requirements for admission on appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the death sentence should be confirmed or set aside in light of the new legislative regime for capital punishment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the requirements for admitting further evidence on appeal, as set out in S v de Jager and section 316(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, must guide applications under section 19(12)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The appellant failed to satisfy these requirements: there was no reasonable possibility that the evidence of provocation and psychological desensitization would have been presented at trial if the new test had applied, given his persistent denial of guilt and lack of credible explanation for withholding the evidence. The proposed evidence was not likely to be accepted as true, nor would it reasonably lead to a different sentence. The court...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; sentence of death confirmed.

Orders

  • The application to lead further evidence is refused.
  • The appeal is dismissed.