CHRISTOPHER EDONG v. THE STATE

CORAM

PARTIES

CHRISTOPHER EDONG APPELLANTS

THE STATE RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Accused/Appellant was charged at the trial court by information with the offence of murder of one Emmanuel Odey who was a friend of the Appellant contrary to section 316(1) and punishable under section 319(1) of the Criminal Code, Cap. 30 Vol. 11, Laws of Ondo State of Nigeria 1978. In the process of investigation the Accused/Appellant confessed that he shot the deceased person in the belief that he was an Armed Robber that came to rob them in their camp. The trial court found the Accused/Appellant guilty of murder and convicted him accordingly. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the Accused/Appellant appealed to this court.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether the trial court was right by relying on Exhibits B, B1 and E to convict the Appellant of the offence of murder (Grounds 2 and 3 of the Amended Notice of Appeal) ?

2. Whether any confession alleged by the prosecution to exist in Exhibit B1 or Exhibit B, B1 and E passed relevant truth tests laid down by case law to warrant the trial court’s reliance thereon to convict the Appellant (Ground 4 of the Amended Notice of Appeal)?

3. Whether in view of the fact that the wives of the deceased Emmanuel Odey were not called as witnesses the trial court was right in admitting what it called their statements in evidence and relying on the same (Ground 6 of the Amended Notice of Appeal)?

4. Whether having regard to the evidence led at the trial, the prosecution proved the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt or at all (Grounds 1 and 5 of the Amended Notice of Appeal)?

5. Whether the trial court was right in proceeding to sentence the Appellant to death after conviction without affording him right of allocutus and what is the effect of this (Ground 7 of the Amended Notice of Appeal)?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CONFESSION – MEANING OF CONFESSION – SECTION 27(1) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT 112 LFN 1990

“A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime”.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN ADMISSION AND CONFESSION

“Usually “admission” in relation to a crime is used to denote the admission of some fact relevant to the crime; whilst “confession” is used to denote the admission of guilt. However, the definition of confession seems wide enough to include an incriminating admission failing short of a full confession. See Edet Obosi v The State (1965) NMLR 119 at 122; Commissioners of Customs & Excise v. Harz and Power (1967) A.C. 760 at 817 (1976) 1 All ER 177 at 182, (1967) 61 Cr. APP.R 123 at 155; Mufutau Balogun & Ors V Attorney General of the Federation (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 345) 442; Nsofor V The State (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt.905) 292 at 308.”

RETRACTION OF A VOLUNTARY STATEMENT BY AN ACCUSED -WHETHER RETRACTION OF A VOLUNTARY STATEMENT BY AN ACCUSED RENDERS IT INADMISSIBLE AGAINST HIM

“The position of the law is that retraction of a voluntary statement by the maker will not render it inadmissible against him. It may having regard to the circumstances of the case go down to affect the weight to be attached to such retraction. See R. v Itule (1961) 1 NLR 462.”

WRONGFUL ADMISSION OF INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE – CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THE WRONGFUL ADMISSION OF INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE WOULD NOT BE A GROUND FOR THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION

“The wrongful admission of inadmissible evidence is not of itself a ground for the reversal of any decision:-
Provided the following conditions are fulfilled
(a) if it appears to the Court of Appeal that the evidence so admitted cannot reasonably be held to have affected the decision, and that;
(b) Such decision would have been the same had such evidence not been admitted.
Section 227 Evidence Act Cap. 112 LFN 1990.R. v Asuquo Edem& Ors (1943) 9 WACA 25; Timitimi & Ors v Chief Amabebe & Ors (1953) 14 WACA 374; R. v Akpan Udo Essien (1939) 5 WACA 70; R. v Adegbola Thomas (1945) 11 WACA 12; James Popoola v Commissioner of Police (1964) NMLR 1.”

HEARSAY EVIDENCE – WHAT AMOUNTS TO HEARSAY?

“Evidence of a person not called as a witness to prove the truth of an assertion is hearsay. It is irrelevant and inadmissible.”

VOLUNTARY CONFESSION OF AN ACCUSED -POWER OF THE COURT TO CONVICT AN ACCUSED PERSON ON HIS FREE AND VOLUNTARY CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT WITHOUT CORROBATIVE EVIDENCE

“The law is that a free and voluntary confession of guilt made by an accused person, if it is direct and positive is sufficient to warrant his conviction without any corroborative evidence as long as the court is satisfied of the truth of the confession. Effiong V State (1998) 8 NWLR (Pt.562) 362; Inuebeka v State (2000) 4 SC (Pt.1) 203; Idowu V State (2000) 7 SC (Pt.11) 50; Alarape V The State (2001) 14 WRN 1.”

ALLOCUTUS – WHETHER FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISION OF ALLOCUTUS CAN INVALIDATE A TRIAL

“Failure to comply with the provision of allocutos does not invalidate a trial; see S.247 of the criminal procedure law of Ondo State.”

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF AN ACCUSED – NECESSITY OF HAVING SOME EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON

“An accused person can be convicted solely on his own confession but it is desirable to have some evidence outside the confession which would make it probable that the confession was true. See Dibie v. State (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt.1038) 30.”

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

2. Criminal Procedure Law of Ondo State

3. Evidence Act Cap. 112 LFN 19

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT