S v MUTSINZIRI 1997 (1) ZLR 6 (H)

Flynote

Criminal procedure — irregularity — witness — questioning of — State counsel questioning witnesses in such a way that prejudicial and inadmissible evidence emerged — correct method of leading evidence from witnesses D — accused conducting own defence in High Court — whether appropriate

Evidence — fingerprints — expert evidence given — extent to which court should make its own observations of the E alleged similarities between the sets of prints

Evidence — identification — photographic — showing of photograph of accused to witness — whether permissible

Evidence — identification — dock identification of accused — value of — how should be made

Evidence — similar facts — multiple counts — extent to which similar facts can be used where identity is in issue

Legal practitioner — conduct and ethics — defence counsel in criminal case — withdrawal from the case — when and how permissible

Legal practitioner — prosecutor — duty — disclosure of inconsistent statements made by State witnesses — what inconsistencies need to be disclosed