LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Effect of Wrongful Admission of Evidence on Conviction
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where inadmissible evidence is admitted, the appellate court must consider whether the trial judge would have reached the same decision without it. If it is impossible to say, the conviction may be unsafe.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in Okoro v. The State (1998) NLC-1351997(SC) at pp. 14–15; Paras B–D.
"The question which must be posed therefore is, would the learned trial Judge have reached the same decision if the inadmissible evidence had not been admitted? It is impossible for us to say what effect that evidence may have had on the mind of the learned trial Judge and although we think that there was sufficient evidence without the inadmissible evidence to convict the appellant, we cannot say with certainty that the learned trial Judge must inevitably have come to the same conclusion."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Wrongful admission of evidence may render a conviction unsafe. The appellate court must assess whether the evidence affected the outcome. If the court cannot be certain that the result would have been the same, the conviction is unsafe. The principle applies the harmless error test. The appellant must show that the evidence was inadmissible and prejudicial. The prosecution must show that the error was harmless. The rule protects the accused’s right to a fair trial. The court will not speculate. The conviction may be quashed.