UDO V. THE QUEEN

• Pages: 14-17

14



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1964] N.S.C.C.

UDO V. THE QUEEN



5

BROWNSON ETUK UDO

V

THE QUEEN

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BRETT,



J.S.C.

TAYLOR,



J.S.C.

BAIRAMIAN,



J.S.C.

12th February, 1964.

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 33/1964

10

15

Criminal Law - Homicide - Murder - Intention - Nature of assault causing death

- Manslaughter - Statement of accused to police wrongly excluded from

consideration - Accusations made by deceased in presence of her assailant.



20

ISSUES :

1.

Can accusations made by a deceased person in the presence of his assailant

be admitted as part of

res gestae.

2.

Can the failure of a trial court to consider an accused person's statement to the



25

police, warrant the substitution of a conviction for manslaughter of one of

murder.

FACTS

The defendant's wife died as a result of a neck injury. She told someone (in

the defendant's presence) how her husband knocked her headlong to the ground



30

because she had permitted someone he suspected of being her lover, to cut sticks.

The defendant said nothing; but when she later described the assault to another

person, he said his wife abused him. The defendant made a statement in Ibibio

explaining the nature of his assault and which the constable wrote down in Eng-

lish. After her fall he tried to treat her. At the trial he gave a different story from



35

the one in his statement to the police. The trial judge did not believe his evidence

and on the authority of

R v. Golder

(1960) 1 W.L.R. 1169, he held that the state-

ment to the police was not legal evidence. He regarded the wife's statements as

part of the

res gestae

and relied mainly on them. It was submitted on appeal against

conviction that the evidence of the wife's statements was inadmissible hearsay.



40

HELD:

1.

The evidence of the deceased's statements was not part of the

res gestae, but

it was admissible as evidence of accusations made in the defendant's presence

in circumstances reasonably calling for comment by him.



45

2.

The judge erred in law in ignoring the defendant's statement to the Police; it

gave a reasonable explanation of the nature of his assault, and the defendant

was entitled on appeal to have his case decided on the assumption that it was

substantially true.

3.

It was not satisfactorily proved that the defendant intended to kill or do grievous



50

harm, and it was doubtful whether the assault was of such a nature as was likely

to endanger human life.

[As to

res gestae,

see 11 HALSBURY'S LAWS 4th Edition page 201 para. 366.]