The confession of an accused can be used as evidence corroborating other evidence.

The corroboration can come from the evidence of another witness or from the evidence of the accused. By this is meant evidence that implicates the accused in the commission of the offence. Corroboration of insignificant facts will not usually help to strengthen the State case.įrom the standpoint of the State what is important is for there to be 'implicatory corroboration'. To be of evidential weight the fact or facts corroborated must be material ones. Such witnesses- for example, accomplices, young children and complainants in sexual cases - must usually be corroborated.īy corroboration is meant evidence other than that of the witness which is consistent with the witness's version of the facts and which tends to show the guilt of the accused. The evidence of certain classes of witnesses is insufficient, standing alone, as proof the facts deposed to. Fanciful or remote possibilities do not introduce a reasonable doubt: Isolano 1985 (1) ZLR 62 at 64-65. If a reasonable person would still entertain a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused is guilty, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. Where there is proof beyond reasonable doubt no reasonable doubt will remain as to the guilt of the accused. It is not, however, proof to an absolute degree of certainty or beyond a shadow of a doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires more than proof on a balance of probabilities. The State is required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. They are then examined from the perspective of how they can be used in favour of persons charged with various crimes. These rules are first described from the standpoint of how they are applied by the courts. What follows in this section is a summary of the main rules of evidence which may be of assistance when a lawyer is defending clients in criminal cases. The rules of evidence are also of primary importance as they lay down such things as which facts may be admitted, which persons are competent to give testimony, how the facts may be proved, when affidavit evidence may be introduced, when confessions are admissible and so on. The facts are therefore of key importance.

Most criminal cases turn on the facts and the inferences to be drawn from those facts, rather than on points of law. The defence lawyer must be fully conversant with the rules of evidence.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt legal