PHOTO: (L-R) Late Journalist Tyron Brown and Convict Jonathan Williams
TEMPLE OF JUSTICE, Monrovia- The Supreme Court of Liberia has reserved ruling into the appeal for acquittal argued the case involving the convicted murderer of the man who a circuit court brought down guilty of murdering Liberian Journalist Tyron Brown, Jonathan who was sentenced to life imprisonment, as Garmah Never Lomo, garmalomo@gmail.com reports.
The ruling is pending a notice of assignment.
Mr. Williams was convicted of killing young Journalist Brown of then Super Fm/Tv in April 2018.
During the argument, which held on Wednesday, March 30,2022 in the Supreme Court with four members of the Bench present, lawyers representing convict Jonathan Williams, Counsellors Jimmy Bombo and Jallah Barbu raised five cardinal issues.
- Whether or not the trial judge Nancy Sammy erred by finding the appellant defendant guilty of murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment?
2.Did the state establish by without reasonable doubt, the commission of the crime of murder as provided by the laws extant in this jurisdiction?
- Whether or not the refusal of the trial judge to take judicial notice of the law as provided in section 14.1 of the penal law providing rebuttal presumption as to extreme indifference to the value of human life is a reversible error?
- Did the trial judge err by refusing to take cognizance of the appellant’s testimony that he was overwhelmed with fear and therefore suffered from extreme emotional disturbance was paralyzed?
- Was the trial judge in error to have concluded that because the victim went to a particular window of a room in the appellant’s(defendant) compound, contrary to the evidence of both the prosecution and defense witnesses?
To the first issue whether or not the trial judge erred by finding the appellant/defendant guilty of murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment, the answer is in the affirmative (yes). The appellant incorporates by reference the entire Bill of Exception discussing this question and contends that her honor Nancy Sammy was in error to have found the appellant/defendant guilty of murder, a felony of the first degree, especially since the pieces of evidence provided by both the prosecution and the defense do not remotely satisfy the conditions for establishing murder. Section 14.1 of the penal law of Liberia states that :
A person is guilty of murder if he(a) purposely or knowingly causes the death of another human being; or (b) causes the death another human being under the circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. A rebuttable presumption that such indifference exists arises if the defendant is engaged or is an accomplice in the commit, treason, offenses defend in section 11.2 (presumably 11.1) or 111.3 of the case file, espionage, sabotage, robbery burglary, kidnapping, felonious restraint, arson, rape, aggravated involuntary sodomy, escape, piracy or other felony involving force or danger to human life.
Defense lawyer Bombo argued that from the above conditions to reach the decision of guilty for murder, the trial Judge was in error.
There is showing in any of the pieces of evidence that the appellant/ defendant purposely or knowingly caused the death of the victim; as testified, he was attacked in a 704 community that is highly infested with criminals and he justifiably felt endangered especially at such late hour of almost midnight, by manner he was attacked and was being hammered against the wall.
His conduct to have come out with a knife was purely not because he had any malice against the victim whom he had not known but to secure himself in case of danger and during the fight he stabbed the victim hoping that the latter which ultimately happened, defense lawyer Bombo added.
Additionally, there is no showing of manifest indifference to the value of human life, especially as to the rebuttal presumption standard laid out clearly in subsection (b) of the law cited hereinabove, as the appellant was never involved in any of these specified acts that could cause a logical conclusion that he was in different to be value of human life.
Cllr. Bombo further argued that appellant/defendant does not deny that he stabbed the victim or that the victim died subsequently and he regrets the incident.
But he said the defendant contends that his act was in self-defense and was only meant to cause the victim to flee, but it turned out later that he lost his life.
Thus, the highest that appellant could be held for is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree consistent with section 14.2 of the same penal law which provides that a person is guilty of manslaughter if he” recklessly causes the death of another human being or causes the death of another human being under circumstances which would be murder except that he causes the death under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable excuse. The reasonableness of the excuse shall be determined from the view point of a person in situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be. An emotional disturbance is excusable within the meaning of this section if it is occasioned by provocation event or situation for which the offender was not culpable responsible.
As to issue two did the state establish by without reasonable doubt, the commission of the crime of murder as provided by the laws extant in this jurisdiction, the answer is No. Liberian law mandates that to establish guilt for murder, the evidence must be overwhelming such that it is beyond any reasonable doubt because a reasonable doubt requires acquittal (section 2.1 of the criminal procedure law). In the instant case, the pieces of evidence adduced by the prosecution leaves so much questions to be answered and fail far short of even the weak standard of preponderance of evidence, much less this high standard.
As to issue three whether or not the refusal of the trial judge to take judicial notice of the law as provided in section 14.1 of the penal law providing rebuttable presumption as to extreme indifference to the value of human life is a reversible error, the answer is yes. As her Honor Associate Justice Yuoh held in her ruling on the motion for change of venue, citing judicial canon #10, which grew from this same case before Criminal Court A and which ruling this Supreme Court upheld, there is an established principle of law that judges cannot impute any causes or idea in a matter, that is, a court cannot Sua sponte raise issue for a party litigant or act in ways that make the court or judge a party to the case, judge Sammy should not have refused to apply such a compelling law that impacts this case. For such fatal error the decision her Honor the trial judge should be reversed and the court find that the appellant is not guilty of murder.
To issue four did the trial judge err by refusing to take cognizance of the appellant’s testimony that he was overwhelmed with fear and therefore suffered from extreme emotional disturbance, was paralyzed, the answer is Yes. The appellant testified that he was swept off his feet by fear and was completely unbalanced in his thoughts and reasoning at a stage. Even the prosecution witness so testified that the appellant had acted in a confused state in which section 14.2 of the penal law supports this position.
Issue five days was the trial judge in error to have concluded that because the victim went to a particular window of a room in the appellant’s compound therefore he knew someone in the room, suggesting that he was a constant visitor to the compound, contrary to the evidence of both prosecution and defense witnesses, the answer is yes.
The same principle prohibiting Judge from making themselves a part of any case or imputing issues not raised by either party or established by them cannot be raised by a judge or from the basis or any of the bases for his or her ruling. In the instant case, the judge Nancy Sammy in so many words stated in her final ruling that the victim was a regular visitor to the niece of the appellant in his home, giving the impression that the victim was a guest known by people in the compound or at least by the occupants of the room which window he banged and therefore the appellant had to basis for take the victim as a stranger.
Wherefore and in view of the foregoing, appellant respectfully prays your honors and this Honorable court to:
Find that the judge fatally erred and that there being no evidence of malice or hatred or any other condition that supports the charge of murder, set aside the final judgement of her Honor Nancy Sammy.
Should the appellant have to adjudged guilty of the death of the victim, same cannot go beyond manslaughter.
That appellant having served substantial time in prison and clearly has no complaint against him even as the probation report the judge relied upon showed, be made to undergo procedures other than being continually in prison as he has the potential to be useful to the Republic out of prison.
Grant unto appellant any all other reliefs your Honors deem just and equitable.
For his part, state prosecutor and Assistant Justice Minister for Litigation, Cllr. Wesseh A. Wesseh argued that convict Jonathan Williams exhibited extreme indifference to human life by stabbing the deceased, Tyron Brown multiple times.
And he said defendant Williams thereafter dumped Journalist Brown’s expired body by the roadside around the Kingdom Care Health Center junction on Du-port Road in Monrovia’s Paynesville suburb.
Cllr. Wesseh said when the incident occurred, the appellant/defendant never went to report himself to the nearest police station but rather ran to former police Inspector General Chris Massaquoi.
According to Cllr. Wesseh, the appellant has malice and his action was pre-mediated toward the deceased because he knew what he was happening by taking kitchen knife with him to come out with it.
He therefore, prayed the Supreme Court to deny the defense/appellant’s appeal and uphold the lower court’s ruling or verdict.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Chief Justice Francis Korkpor questioned state prosecutors as to whether there was any autopsy done.
And Cllr. Wesseh responded with a no answer, but said the Coroner’s inquest was done.