The accused was true without authorized possession of such drug, the cocaine, this fact, and other particulars are to be set clear in the charge sheet to avoid the particulars being too scanty but to be clear to inform the accused of the charge against him. The ‘smaller bag’ had a kilo of cocaine, this has a function in the law of evidence. However, it is not easy, if there are facts denied by the accused since the accused does not need to prove his innocence. This is because every case that comes before a court of law has a fact story behind it. Facts out of which cases arise keep happening in the ordinary course of life, the means which can be used to prove the fact that would help.
- .. keep the drugs from being entered as evidence of the trial.
- to get the drugs admitted as evidence of the trial.
They must all be controlled by the rules and principles laid down by the law of evidence.
According to the jury, laws of evidence do not affect the substantive rights of parties but only lay down the law for facilitating the course of justice.
First is the oral evidence
“_ _ That NYPD officers, saw a man (Dolce) matching suspiciously at the airport, they then decided to follow him with intention of investigating or find out why the man behaved that way; the accused entered the cab, and was followed by the officers until he was outside the airport. The accused was stopped by the officers who requested to carry a search in the vehicle that he hired. The driver agreed that the search is carried. He was carrying the bags. It is here the officers found a smaller bag in the cab and had half a kilo of cocaine. Dolce did not deny that it belonged to him when asked, and this led to his arrest for possession of cocaine”
The evidence is relevant and remains relevant even if it was obtained in the course of search as the court found support in the following observation of Lord GODDARD C.J. in the judgment of Privy Council in Kuruma V. Reginam.
In their Lordships opinion, when it is a question of the admission of evidence strictly it is not whether the method by which it was obtained is tortious, but whether what has been obtained is relevant to the issue being tried’
The evidence deals with facts. There was a person (officer) who saw and heard. The condition of the witness mind is good, as it has been said that the state of a man’s mind is as much a fact as the state of his digestion. This is a fact that cocaine was at the hand of Dolce.
This fact is not in dispute, as the accused have already admitted the fact that the ‘smaller bag and the cocaine belong to him, and that is why he was in possession. This is a fact in issue. There is a credible eyewitness. The confession to the officer is evidence. Under the Evidence Act, there are two situations in which the confession can be made one before a judge or a magistrate and the other, which is now of interest, is the confession to police which are admitted in evidence when the statement leads to the discovery of a fact connected with the crime. This is as it was in Cocke’s case and statutes on Evidence, 199 (11th edition by G.D Nokes 1970). In this case, cocaine was discovered after a confession to officers that the smaller bag belongs to the accused. the confession was made by the accused himself.
The cocaine is itself an exhibit, first, it is a controlled substance and the accused was in possession. It has not been proved through the chemist that it is cocaine; this would be made as a formal or judicial admission and on cross-examination. It would be true and clear and such admissions are by far the best proof of the fact that it is the real cocaine; its weight measured and as a substance is admissible. The evidence would (has) been given by the arresting officer on what they saw, having the cab.
The reason why the officers suspected the accused is that it was their duty within the rules, principles, mechanisms, and state structure to prevent, detect, cope with and control criminal behavior. Crime is a reality of life.
Dolce has pleaded innocent, the criminal procedure rules mustn’t deal with detection or prosecution of criminals but suspects and accused persons, but that the presumption of innocence is also a statement of the prosecution’s burden of proof. This has now been achieved as there is concrete and admissible evidence. This calls for conviction of the accused or otherwise punishment by law.
Reference List
G, D. Nokes. (1970). Case of Cocks and statutes on Evidence, 199 (11th edition).
Lord GODDARD C.J. in the judgment of Privy Council in Kuruma V. Reginam.
The Principle of the Law of evidence. DV AVTAR. Central Law Agency 30/D/1, MOTILAZ.