S v Tabethe (268/1989) [1989] ZASCA 148 (20 November 1989)

S v Tabethe (268/1989) [1989] ZASCA 148 (20 November 1989)

The court held that the appellant failed to establish extenuating circumstances. The evidence did not show that his intoxication was of such a degree as to cloud his judgment at the time of the attack. There was no reliable evidence regarding the extent of his intoxication or its impact on his mental state. The absence of premeditation was not proven, as the appellant may have followed the deceased for a considerable distance before attacking him. The trial court's findings that the deceased was unarmed and taken by surprise were accepted. The appellant did not act impulsively, and the arguments advanced on appeal were without substance. The appeal against the death sentence was dismissed.

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 148
Parties
Appellant: Eric Tabethe; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 November 1989
Case Number
268/1989
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; death sentence confirmed.
Judges
Van Heerden, Milne, Eksteen
Legal Topics
Murder, Extenuating Circumstances, Intoxication, Premeditation, Self Defence
Criminal Law Murder Extenuating Circumstances Intoxication Premeditation Self Defence

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Tabethe

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in finding no extenuating circumstances for the murder conviction.
  2. 2 Whether intoxication and absence of premeditation constituted extenuating circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant acted in self-defence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant failed to establish extenuating circumstances. The evidence did not show that his intoxication was of such a degree as to cloud his judgment at the time of the attack. There was no reliable evidence regarding the extent of his intoxication or its impact on his mental state. The absence of premeditation was not proven, as the appellant may have followed the deceased for a considerable distance before attacking him. The trial court's findings that the deceased was unarmed and taken by surprise were accepted. The appellant did not act impulsively, and the arguments advanced on appeal were without substance. The appeal against the death sentence was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; death sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The sentence imposed by the trial court is confirmed.