Richard Willie V The State (1968)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MADARIKAN, J.S.C. 

In charge No. W/1 7C/67, the appellant was convicted in the High Court, Warri, on the 31st October, 1967 of murdering his mother, Akpokveve Oguma, and sentenced to death by Obaseki, J.

The facts of the case were not in dispute. The appellant who was labouring under the impression that the deceased had poisoned him by witchcraft and thereby made him suffer from stomach ache demanded from the deceased an explanation as to why he had such illness. The deceased did not reply. Thereupon the appellant stabbed her with a knife and she fled. The appellant pursued her and assaulted her with a broken stool and also stoned her.

He finally dealt a fatal blow on her head with a heavy grinding stone exhibit ‘A’. The case for the prosecution was substantially supported by the statement which the appellant made to the police exhibit ‘C’ and his evidence at the trial.

At the hearing of the appeal Mr. Cole who appeared for the appellant restricted his arguments to the two additional grounds of appeal which he argued together. They read:-

“(1) The appellant did not have a fair trial in that the learned trial judge who is not a medical expert failed to give any or sufficient consideration to the expert opinion of Dr. Stevenson which established that the appellant’s mental state was abnormal.

(2) In view of the testimony of the fast prosecution witness there was sufficient evidence before the court of trial which ought to have been considered on the defence of insanity. The learned trial judge therefore erred by finding that “there is no evidence that accused (appellant) was insane at the time he killed”.

He relied solely on the evidence of Dr. Stevenson which may be summarised thus in so far as it relates to his arguments:

(1) Dr. Stevenson first saw the appellant on the 26th November, 1966, and he observed that the appellant was normal.

(2) He next saw the appellant in December, 1966.

(3) Thereafter he saw the appellant on the 22nd July, 1967, and the appellant talked normally and sensibly to him.

(4) He observed the appellant a day before continuing his evidence on the 18th October, 1967 and formed the opinion that the appellant was not normal then. He concluded his evidence under cross-examination by say:-

“I tried to find out from him why he killed his mother, he could give no sensible reason. He confirmed he killed his mother. He did not give me the impression yesterday that he knew it was wrong. He said he was sick at the time and that his mother was trying to cure him and for some reason he became annoyed and killed her. It is likely that the condition “of abnormality was present but latent when he killed his mother. I cannot swear to that. Now I can swear to it that he is abnormal mentally”.

Considering the evidence of insanity the learned trial judge said:-