Circumstantial Evidence Essay

QUESTION 1. This ruling was centered on admissibility, and the issue to be resolved is whether or not the Judge erred in refusing the second statement made by the accused? The general rule with regards to admissibility states that evidence which is relevant is admissible, if not relevant the court would reject it as inadmissible. According to S. 51(2) and (3) of the Evidence Decree, 1975(NRCD 323) its states that: “(2) All relevant evidence is admissible except as otherwise provided by any enactment (3) No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence”.

However, by virtue of S. 120(1) of NRCD 323 which states that hearsay statement made by an accused in a criminal action which constitutes or forms an essential or part of or taken with other

Issue raised is whether or not the various evidence of fact leads irresistible to the guilt of the accused. The principle is that for circumstantial evidence to lead to the conviction of the accused, it has to be such that it must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the crime has been committed. Circumstantial evidence is utilized where direct evidence is not available or easily obtainable . Explaining this point further is the case of “Duah v The Republic the appellant was charged and convicted of murder which arose out of the death of the deceased(Wife) . on the day she dead there was no eyewitness as to who and how the injury was inflicted. The appellant was the last person to see her alive, and the prosecution relied mainly on circumstantial evidence. The court held that, “Circumstantial evidence was evidence of surrounding circumstances which by undesigned coincidence was capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics. In criminal cases, it was sometimes not possible to prove the crime charged by direct or positive evidence of persons present at the time the crime was committed. So where the testimony of eye-witnesses was not available, the jury was entitled and indeed permitted to infer from those facts which the prosecution had proved other facts necessary either to complete the elements of guilt or establish innocence”. Furthermore, before an inference of guilt can be drawn from the

The issue is whether or not marital privilege is enough grounds for the judge to reject the grounds of PW2. “In law is said that the husband and wife are one, thus implying that the husband and wife have identity of interests” . Also, marital privilege is given credence to on the basis of public policy in terms of the confidences of conjugal relations which it seeks to preserved. However, not every communication is deemed confidential. In the instant case, the room of the PW2 and his wife where the conversation was held signifies private communication. S. 110 of NRCD 323, states that “A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, a confidential communication made between that person and the spouse of that person during their marriage”. In the instant case, the PW2 has the discretion to waive the privilege and testify in court or she could apply to the court stating that the communication was confidential and as such cannot be disclosed but she testified.as such, I am in support of the judge’s refusal to admit the evidence on the grounds of marital privilege because the PW2 has waived her privilege by testifying in