Republic v Everlyne Martha Opicho [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Machakos
Category
Criminal
Judge(s)
D. K. Kemei
Judgment Date
October 28, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
2

Case Brief: Republic v Everlyne Martha Opicho [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Republic v. Everlyne Martha Opicho
- Case Number: Criminal (Murder) Case No. 9 of 2017
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Machakos
- Date Delivered: October 28, 2020
- Category of Law: Criminal
- Judge(s): D. K. Kemei
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues before the court were whether the prosecution proved the elements of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, including the unlawful death of a human being caused by the accused with malice aforethought.

3. Facts of the Case:
The accused, Everlyne Martha Opicho, was charged with the murder of her infant son, JW, alleged to have occurred on December 8, 2016, in Athi River Sub-County, Machakos County. The prosecution presented evidence from eight witnesses, including the accused's boyfriend who testified that she had sent him a text indicating she had committed a sin. Witnesses reported seeing the body of a burnt infant at a dumpsite, and a post-mortem examination confirmed the cause of death as fourth-degree thermal burns. DNA analysis established a 99.99% probability that Opicho was the biological mother of the deceased.

4. Procedural History:
The case progressed through the High Court where the prosecution called eight witnesses. On May 12, 2020, the court found a prima facie case against the accused, leading to her being placed on her defense. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the defense hearing was conducted via Skype on July 8, 2020. The accused denied the charge and asserted she was not involved in the child’s death. The prosecution argued that she was the last person seen with the child and that her actions were suspicious.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered sections 203 and 204 of the Penal Code, which define murder and establish that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully caused the death of a human being with malice aforethought.
- Case Law: The court referenced the standard of proof in criminal cases, particularly the principle established in *Miller v. Minister of Pensions* [1947] All E.R. 372, emphasizing that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not equate to proof beyond any shadow of doubt.
- Application: The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution established that the accused was present at the scene of the crime, had a motive linked to her personal circumstances, and acted with malice aforethought. The DNA evidence confirmed her relationship to the deceased, and her behavior following the incident was deemed inconsistent with that of a concerned parent.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, convicting Everlyne Martha Opicho of murder. The decision highlighted the weight of circumstantial evidence and the significance of the accused's actions leading up to and following the child's death.

7. Dissent:
There was no dissenting opinion noted in the judgment.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya convicted Everlyne Martha Opicho of the murder of her infant son, establishing that the prosecution met its burden of proof. The case underscores the importance of circumstantial evidence and the legal standard of proof in criminal proceedings, particularly in cases involving serious charges such as murder. The decision has broader implications for future cases involving similar circumstances, emphasizing the court's reliance on both direct and circumstantial evidence to ascertain guilt.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Republic-v-Everlyne-Martha-Opicho-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2495_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries