S v Wild (CC54/88) [1990] ZASCA 42 (30 March 1990)

S v Wild (CC54/88) [1990] ZASCA 42 (30 March 1990)

The court found that, considering the totality of the evidence, including expert testimony and the appellant's own account, there existed reasonable doubt as to whether the appellant possessed criminal capacity at the time of the shooting. The appellant's emotional state, the severe assault by the deceased, and her subsequent actions and memory lapses supported the possibility of automatism or temporary incapacity. The court held that the benefit of reasonable doubt regarding criminal capacity must be afforded to the appellant, and her conviction could not stand.

Citation
[1990] ZASCA 42
Parties
Appellant: Jacoba Dorothea Wiid; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 1990
Case Number
CC54/88
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction set aside.
Judges
Corbett HR, Vivier AR, Goldstone Wr AR
Legal Topics
Murder, Criminal Capacity, Automatism, Onus of Proof, Temporary Insanity
Criminal Law Murder Criminal Capacity Automatism Onus of Proof Temporary Insanity

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacoba Dorothea Wiid

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was criminally responsible at the time of the shooting.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant acted with criminal capacity or in a state of automatism.
  3. 3 Whether the benefit of reasonable doubt regarding criminal capacity should be afforded to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, considering the totality of the evidence, including expert testimony and the appellant's own account, there existed reasonable doubt as to whether the appellant possessed criminal capacity at the time of the shooting. The appellant's emotional state, the severe assault by the deceased, and her subsequent actions and memory lapses supported the possibility of automatism or temporary incapacity. The court held that the benefit of reasonable doubt regarding criminal capacity must be afforded to the appellant, and her conviction could not stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction set aside.

Orders

  • The decision of the trial court is set aside.
  • The accused is found not guilty and discharged.