Judge: In the present case the deceased was killed in a very pecular manner.
Judge: Why the deceased had not answered the accused when he shouted out to her. Why the deceased did not answer the accused while she was in the toilet.
Judge: It was the accused's version that he screamed at the top of his voice. Yet the deceased did not answer.
Judge: Another question is why the accused fired 4 shots before going back to the bedroom.
Judge: He was not truthful when asked about his intentions of that morning. He was not truthful when he told the court that he did not have intention to fire his firearm.
Judge: There is also a question of owness, there is not explanation as to what the accused did.
Judge: If there is any possibility of his explanation being true then he is entitled to be aquitted.
Judge: The owness was on the state to prove that the accused was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Judge: In count the accused is charged with pre-mediated murder. In respect of this charge the evidence is purely circumstantial.
Judge: The simply explanation from the accused was shooting the deceased was a mistake.
Judge: The timelines of the events tipped the scales of the accused version.
Judge: I am here talking about direct intention. The state has not proved that the accused committed pre-mediated murder.
Judge: There is just not enough facts.
Judge: This was so because all the crime of murder had been met. This brings the question whether we are dealing with the question of transferred malace.
Judge: We will take a 5 minute break.
Court is back in session.
Judge: If A intends to kill b but misses and kills C. If C's death was reasonable and expected than A would be held liable.
Judge: In these circumstances A would be guilty of the murder of C if he intended to kill C.
Judge: In other words A intends to kill an individual whether the name is B or C.
Judge: The error as to the identify of the individual is not in concern.
Judge: In terms of the ruling, A is guilty of the murder of C with out the intention to kill C spectifically. We have since moved away from that law.
Judge: Current S.A. law "Nowadays, if A assults B and B dies, A is not held liable for the death of B.
Judge: My view is that we are here dealing with error in Posona. The blow was meant for the person behind the door, the fact that the person turned out to be the deceased and not an intruder.
Judge: The accused had intention to shoot at the person in the toilet but never to kill the person.
Judge: A person who acts in self-defense or private defense. Would a reasonable man have acted in the same way.
Judge: Depending on the circumstances. At worst for him, he can then be convicted of cupible homicide.
Judge: In the present case, the accused is the only one that can state what frame of mind he was in when he shot the deceased.
Judge: He did however state that he did not intend to kill the deceased.
Judge: On his own version, he suspected that an intruder had entered his house. He honestly believed that his life and that of the deceased was in danger.
Judge: The bathroom window was indeed open, so it was not his mind at work. So he loaded his firearm, he heard the door slam shut.
Judge: On his version he was scared that the intruder was coming out to attack him.
Judge: The accused did act unlawfully when he fired his firearm at a closed door.
Judge: Did the accused objectively not see that the deceased was in the bathroom.
Judge: The evidence does not support the state's case, however the accused's version that the deceased was in bed when the accused fired the shots through the door.
Judge: This was stated to various other people. The accused told his version to John Stander and Dr. Stipp.
Judge: Counsel for the defense argued that the accused could not have made this up so quickly after the incident.
Judge: the question is, did the accused foresee the possability of her death?
Judge: How could the accused reasonably have forseen that the shots would have killed the deceased.
Judge: Let alone the deceased, as he thought she was in the bed in the bedroom.
Judge: Dr. Stipp an independent witness who was at the house minutes after the shooting. The accused pleaded to him to help save the deceased and he prayed for her life.
Judge: That however, the accused cannot be found guilty of pre-meditated murder, this is not the end of the matter as culpable homicide is a competent verdict
Judge: We will take an early lunch.
Judge: I now deal with negligence and capable homicide.
Judge: In determining whether the accused can be charged with capable homicide, we must look at a reasonable man.