JOHN IMO V. THE STATE

• Pages: 683-706

JOHN IMO V. THE STATE



6B3

JOHN IMO V. THE STATE

5

JOHN IMO



APPELLANT

V.

10 THE STATE



RESPONDENT

APPEAL NO.SC.21/1991.

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

KARIBI-WHYTE,



J.S.0

15



KAWU,



J.S.C.

NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C.

WALT,



J.S.C.

OMO,



J.S.C.

20



22nd November, 1991.

Criminal Law and Procedure

-murder defences of intoxication leading to insanity and

insanity simpliciter - distinction between - effect of - whether sustainable - Criminal

25



Code - exhaustiveness of

Evidence - Burden of proof in the defences of intoxication and insanity - wherein lies.

Words and Phrases -

intoxication - meaning of

30

ISSUES

1.

Can drunkness or intoxication constitute a defence to a criminal charge?

2.

What is the meaning and of intoxication and how does it manifest?

3.

When may the defence of insanity by reason of intoxication under section

29(2)(a) of the criminal code avail an accused person charged for murder?

35

FACTS:

The appellant was charged for murder under section 319(1) of the criminal code

law of Eastern Nigeria, 1963 at an Anambra State High Court. He pleaded not

guilty. The P.W.1, a brother to the deceased and the deceased were together in

40 their father's compound. RW.6, a girl came to the Compound with a message to

the deceased that the appellant was inviting him for a drink in their compound to

celebrate the birth of appellant brother's baby. The deceased went to the appel-

lant's Compound to join P.W.2. At that time the appellant was not there. While they

were drinking wine, appellant came and joined them. His eyes were red and he

45 was offered a glass of wine by P.W.2, which he drank. He soon went out. About

five to ten minutes later, he returned with some women following him and shouting

"vulture had eaten me." The appellant, for unexplained reasons, started cutting

the deceased with a matchet. The deceased ran back to their compound crying.

The deceased gave up before he could be taken to the Hospital. P.W.2 who tried

50 to snatch the matchet from the appellant received a matchet cut from him. The

appellant ran away but was later arrested by the villagers and handed over to the

police. In his statement to the police under caution, the appellant admitted killing

the deceased under the influence of alcohol. While in his evidence in Court, he put

684



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1991] 2 N.S.C.C.

up a defence of insanity. After a review of the evidence and submission of counsel,

the learned trial judge found the appellant guilty as charged, convicted and

sentenced him to death.

The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was dismissed.

Upon a further appeal to The Supreme Court. the appellant contended,

inter

alia

that the lower court wrongly interpreted the provisions of section 29(2)(b) of

the Criminal Code, in holding that the defence of insanity, temporarily or otherwise

caused by intoxication was not established to exonerate the appellant from criminal

liability.

HELD •

1.

Prima facie,

drunkenness is not a defence to a criminal charge as every person

of the age of discretion is presumed to be sane and to have intended the natural

consequences of his actions. But evidence of drunkenness which renders the

accused person incapable of forming the specific intent essential to constitute

the crime, with other facts proved, are taken into consideration in order to

determine whether he had that intent.

(See p.695, lines 26 - 31).

2.

Under section 29(2) of criminal code, the defence of drunkenness if self

induced, can reduce murder to manslaughter where it resulted in temporary

insanity.

(See p.

695,

lines 44 - 48).

per

KARIBI-WHYTE, J.S.C.

3.

It is undoubtedly helpful to read the provisions of sections 28 and 29 (2)(2) of

the Criminal Code together where the defence raised is one of insanity arising

from intoxication. But the facts of the particular case may dictate the adoption

of a different approach.

(See p.699, lines, 45 - 48).

4.

The two deferences in sections 28 and 29(2) of the criminal code based on

insanity are predicated on two distinct origins. Whereas section 28 is on mental

disease or natural mental infirmity, section 29(2) is founded on involuntary

intoxication.

But there is a common bond in the two defences. This is that in either case

the accused must establish that at the relevant time, he was deprived of

capacity to understand what he was doing or to control his actions or to know

that he ought not to do the act or make the omission.

(See p.700, lines 23 - 26

& 29 - 32).

5.

The law is well settled in favour of the presumption of sanity of an accused

person. Hence where an accused person is claiming to be insane the onus is

on him to establish that fact.

Similarly the burden is on the accued to prove the defence of intoxication which

also is a question of fact.

(See p.701, lines 18 - 22).

6.

It is now well settled that the issues for determination must not only relate to

the grounds of appeal filed but must strictly be confined to them.

In the instant case, since the only surviving ground of appeal is with respect



45

to the construction of section 29(2) of the Criminal Code in its application to

the facts of this case. every other issues becomes irrelevant.

(Seep.

699,

lines

31

35)

7.

"I agree entirely with the submission that the Criminal Code is exhaustive as

to the offences and defences provided therein, and in construing its provisions

recourse for assistance need not be had to English decisions or common law

concepts in existence before its enactment.

(See p. 699, lines 40 - 43).

1f

2(

25

3C

35

4C

5C