n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Olaoye v V. State (2018) CLR 1(d) (SC)

Judgement delivered on 19th day of January, 2018

Brief

  • Concurrent finding of fact
  • Hearsay evidence
  • Identification parade
  • Confessional statement
  • Burden and onus of proof in criminal cases
  • Confessional statement
  • Wrongful admission of evidence
  • Section 403A of the Criminal Procedure Code Laws of Lagos State of 1994
  • Section 402(2) (A) of the Criminal Procedure Code Laws of Lagos State of 1994
  • Section 319(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code Laws of Lagos State of 1994
  • Section 420 of the Criminal Procedure Code Laws of Lagos State of 1994
  • Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act 2011
  • Section 28 of the Evidence Act 2011
  • Section 251 of the Evidence Act 2011
  • Section 38 of the Evidence Act 2011
  • Section 38 of the Evidence Act 2011
  • Section 125 of the Evidence Act 2011
  • Section 126 of the Evidence Act 2011
  • Issues for determination
  • Issues for determination

Facts

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos division ("The lower Court" for short) delivered on the 16th day of May, 2014 which affirmed the judgment of the Lagos State High Court (Trial Court) delivered on 13th December, 2007.

The appellant herein who was the 1st accused person at the trial Court, was charged along with three other co-accused persons before the trial Court on offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, armed robbery, murder and receiving stolen goods, contrary to Sections 403A, 402(2) (A),319(1) and 420 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 32, Vol.2 Laws of Lagos State of 1994. In proof of the case, the prosecution (now respondent) called three witnesses and tendered eight (8) exhibits, while the 1st accused/appellant did not call any witness but testified on his behalf. During the trial, the prosecution sought to tender a confessional statement which it alleged was voluntarily made by the accused/appellant but the defence objected to the admissibility of the said confessional statement on the ground that it was not made voluntarily by the accused/appellant. As is the law, the trial Court conducted trial within trial in order to determine the voluntariness of the said confessional statement. At the end of the mini-trial, the Court held that the statement was made voluntarily and admitted it in evidence and marked it as Exhibit H. The trial thereafter proceeded in earnest and in the end the trial Court found or held that the prosecution /respondent had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant and the three other co-accused persons committed all the offences as charged and convicted them accordingly.

Miffed by the judgment of the trial Court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal (the lower or Court below), albeit, without success. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Court below affirming the conviction and sentence passed on him by the trial Court the appellant further appealed to this Court.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether the eminent justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding..
Read More