Walter B.

Serjleh v RL (20 LLR 371 (1971)

Action: Murder

Appellant Serjleh was indicted during the 1967 May Term of the 1 st Judicial Circuit for the crime of
Murder. The indictment alleged that the appellant assaulted one Apostle Samuel O. Aowole on April 17,
1967nat at his home on Center Street. That the Apostle languished and died from the wounds shortly
after.

Upon prosecution first attempt to take the case to trial, the appellant, defendant in the court below,
filed a plea of insanity. The trial judge however ignored said plea and endeavor to continue with the trial
without first submitting the defendant to a psychiatric examination. Defendant applied to the Supreme
Court to have the accused submitted to psychiatric exam and the Court granted the application. The
examination was conducted by Dr. Ronald Whiterspoon of the Catherine Mills Rehabilitation Center.

Procedural History

The trial was then held during the November Term 1969. At trial, witnesses for the prosecution included
one Colston Johnson of the National Bureau of Immigration who testified to the effect that the Bureau
was informed that Apostle Adwole had been murdered and that the body of the deceased was found by
officers of the Bureau at his Center Street residence. He stated further that upon a preliminary
investigation, the NBI was informed that the defendant had been seen running from the scene and in
the back of the Department of Justice. That the defendant was apprehended on Gardnesville Road after
va search and taken into custody for questioning.

The prosecution also produced testimony that the defendant had bought an axe from a shop on Camp
Johnson Road.

When the prosecution rested with the production of evidence, the defense produced several witnesses
including one Matthew S. Bridges who testified Walter had fallen ill and began attending a prophet
church on Center Street. That Walter became complaining about a burning sensation in his head and
that his eyes could only stare at a person with a fixed glaze. There was evidence that his family
complained he abused them and acted unusual.

Further, Dr. DH Russ, not a psychiatric from Catherine Mills took the stand to identify the signature of
Dr. witherspoon. He then further said that Dr. witherspoon’s report portrayed an indication who was
the mentally deranged. He explained the term “acute schizophrenic reaction paranoid type” which was
mentioned in the report.

At the completion of the presentation of evidence, the jury deliberated and returned a guilty verdict
against the defendant. The defendant filed a motion for new trial and same was denied on the ground
that the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence. Final judgment was entered in
conformity with the verdict.

The defendant excepted to the judgment and filed an appeal to the Supreme Court on a five count bill of
exceptions. In count two of the bill of exceptions, the appellant contended that the court erred by
admitting a certain documentary evidence offered by the prosecution of a statement bu one Daniel B.
Karnley making representation that defendant had committed an act not from his certain knowledge for
he had not seen the act or seen the defendant perform the act..

Appellant argued that the witness statement was heresay and that by admitting it, he had been
deprived of his constitutional right to confrontation.

Issue

Whether documentary/ written statements offered into evidence in a criminal case by a witness other
than the declarant, although the witness is cross-examined, constitute heresay and should be excluded?

Holding

Yes

Rule of Law

In all criminal cases, an accused is entitled under the basic law of the land to be confronted by those
accusing him.

REASONING

The court reasoned that all the rules of the cases which the prosecution cited to back their case do not
apply in a criminal case because a criminal defendant cannot be deprived of his constitutional rights.

Decision

Reversed and remanded