Dolus Eventualis Case Study
In the early hours on the night of 13 February 2013, from a secured complex known as Silver Woods Country Estate in the district of Pretoria, Dr. Stipp, a medical practitioner, and Mr. Stander heard gunshots and screams for help. They entered to the house and found Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius, the Olympic and Paralympic Games athlete that had represented South Africa on 2012, kneeling alongside a 29 year old model, Miss Reeva Steenkamp, who was lying on the floor at the foot of the stairs leading to the sleeping quarters of the house. Pistorius and Steenkamp met on the 4th of November of 2012 by a mutual friend and started a romance. Steenkamp had been shot four times with a 9mm pistol and was found already dead. Oscar had carried Reeva from
…show more content…
The reason relies that on the asseveration that indicates that the perpetrator’s intention to kill must relate to the person killed, does not mean that a perpetrator must know or appreciate the identity of the victim. So when the trial court decided that Pistorius was guilty for a culpable homicide because he thought that Reeva was on his bed and not on the bathroom, do not relieved the accused of dolus eventualis, because It does not matter who is behind the door, what really matters is the fact of killing someone, as in the case of the ‘dolus indeterminatus’ that refers to an indeterminate person and is not a form of intention apart of dolus eventualis.
Consequently, the second question was answered dismissing the Gauteng Division by saying that the court incorrectly conceived and applied the legal principals pertaining to circumstantial evidence because the court do not take into account the evidence of Cpt. Mangena, a police forensic expert, which proved that there was nowhere for the deceased to hide and that the accused must have foreseen the potentially fatal consequences of his actions, this was a crucial evidence that was not
The reason relies that on the asseveration that indicates that the perpetrator’s intention to kill must relate to the person killed, does not mean that a perpetrator must know or appreciate the identity of the victim. So when the trial court decided that Pistorius was guilty for a culpable homicide because he thought that Reeva was on his bed and not on the bathroom, do not relieved the accused of dolus eventualis, because It does not matter who is behind the door, what really matters is the fact of killing someone, as in the case of the ‘dolus indeterminatus’ that refers to an indeterminate person and is not a form of intention apart of dolus eventualis.
Consequently, the second question was answered dismissing the Gauteng Division by saying that the court incorrectly conceived and applied the legal principals pertaining to circumstantial evidence because the court do not take into account the evidence of Cpt. Mangena, a police forensic expert, which proved that there was nowhere for the deceased to hide and that the accused must have foreseen the potentially fatal consequences of his actions, this was a crucial evidence that was not