LAW OF EVIDENCE

Previous and subsequent conduct form part of resgestea and can be an important factor in the determination of facts in issue

With the aid of relevant authorities discuss the statement above

The term resgestea is used to connote acts, declarations and circumstances constituting or explaining a fact or transaction in issue.

Res gestea therefore, refers to facts that are admissible in evidence as the surrounding circumstances of the event to be proved.

The doctrine of res gestea is provided for under sections 4-15 of the evidence Act cap 6 Laws of Uganda.

In R vs. kurji (1940) 7 EACA 58.

The accused had stabbed the brother of the deceased and had uttered threats against the deceased.

Immediately after wards, he was seen in the go-down of an immediate shop standing over the deceased holding a dagger.

It was held

The two circumstances were so interconnected that the wounding or stabbing of the deceased’s brother must be regarded as part of the res gestea in the trial of the accused in the murder of the deceased and such evidence was admissible even though it tendered to lead to the commission of another offence.

Previous and subsequent conduct of the accused will be an important factor in determination of facts in issue thus an aspect to the doctrine of resgestea.

Section 7(1) of the evidence act provides that any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes motive, preparation for any fact in issue.

(i) Motive this implies an emotion or desire operating on the will and causing it to act ,motive is a reward that the offender wants to satisfy his ego  and there can hardly be any action without motive.

In Uganda vs. Barikunda s/o  Rwebanda (1985) HCB 12

Court held

That where motive is established, becomes a relevant fact for determination of intention

(ii) Previous conduct

Conduct this is the external behavior of a person which should be differentiated from character which connotes to an impression about a person in the minds of others.

 conducted is provided for under section 7(2) supra which provides for the conduct of any party in any suit or proceedings in reference to any fact in issue.

Therefore previous conduct refers to that behavior of a person before commission of the alleged offence or crime and this involves previous attempts as well as declarations of intent

In makindi vs. R (1961) EA 327

The appellant was convicted for manslaughter of a boy for whom he stood in loco parentis by beating him so severely that he died.

At the trial, the appellant had raised a defence to the effect that the boy was epileptic and so had suffered these injuries in the course of an epileptic attack.

The prosecution had then adduced evidence of previous severe beatings of the deceased by the appellant in order to rebut his defence the issue was whether that evidence was admissible and it was held that such evidence was admissible (section 6,7,8 and 14) showing the motive of the appellant to revenge on the deceased and the appellant ill will towards the child.

(iii) Subsequent conduct

This is the conduct of the suspect following an event/offence occurrence.

It may explain the occurrence of an offence and may be used to implicate a person of a crime such as silence, giving false statements, being evasive in explanations and the absconding from jurisdiction.

In Uganda vs. Onen Simon (1991) HCB 7

The accused was charged with murder and he claimed to have been woken up by the beatings administered by the victim on him. The deceased’s body was found a few meters from his house and it had cute and evidence that the deceased’s body had been dragged through the accused’s compound.

The accused disappeared for two months and when he appeared, explaining that he had been afraid that the local militia would kill him.

It was held

That the conduct of running away was not that of an innocent man.

However caution while dealing with conduct is necessary as in henry kifamunte vs.  Uganda s. c crim appeal where the supreme court reversed the holding of both the appeal and high court on the grounds that any innocent person could have ran for his life and such a doubt  created should be resolved in favor of the accused .

However the doctrine of res-gestea  has other aspects and here under are outlined

-facts which form part of the same transaction under section 5

-facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of the facts in issue under section 6

- Explanatory and introductory facts under section 8

-facts which show common intention under section 9

-contradictory or inconsistent facts under section 10

-facts which show state of mind or bodily feeling under section 13

-facts which are evidence of similar facts or occurrence under section 14

-facts which show the ordinary course of business under section 15

In a nut shell a close examination reveals that previous and subsequent conduct forms   an important aspect of the doctrine of res gestea