S v Viveiros (75/98) [2000] ZASCA 95; [2000] 2 All SA 86 (A) (9 March 2000)

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal
>>
2000
>>
[2000] ZASCA 95
|

|

S v Viveiros (75/98) [2000] ZASCA 95; [2000] 2 All SA 86 (A); 2000 (1) SACR 453 (SCA) (9 March 2000)

SAFLII Note:
Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have
been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and
SAFLII
Policy
TH
E
SUPREM
E
COUR
T
O
F
APPEAL
OF
SOUTH
AFRICA
CAS
E
NUMBE
R
75/98
I
n
th
e
matte
r
between:
M
V
H
VIVEIRO
S
...........................................................................
Appellant
and
TH
E
STAT
E
.....................................................................................
Respondent
CORAM:
HEFER,
ZULMAN
JJA
e
t
MTHIYAN
E
AJA
DAT
E
O
F
HEARING
:
2
1
FEBRUAR
Y
2000
DAT
E
O
F
JUDGMENT
:
9
MARC
H
2000
JUDGMENT
ZULMAN
J
A
:
[1
]
Th
e
appellan
t
wa
s
formerl
y
th
e
principa
l
o
f
th
e
G.C
.
William
s
Hous
e
(“the
home”)
,
a
facilit
y
i
n
Bridgetow
n
o
n
th
e
Cap
e
Flat
s
whic
h
care
s
fo
r
homeless,
abandone
d
o
r
abuse
d
children
.
H
e
wa
s
charge
d
i
n
th
e
Regiona
l
Magistrate’
s
Court,
Wynberg
,
wit
h
si
x
count
s
o
f
indecen
t
assaul
t
an
d
on
e
o
f
sodomy
.
Al
l
the
complainant
s
wer
e
minor
s
a
t
th
e
tim
e
o
f
th
e
allege
d
offences
.
Som
e
wer
e
very
youn
g
childre
n
whils
t
other
s
wer
e
mor
e
o
r
les
s
o
f
th
e
ag
e
o
f
puberty
.
The
y
were
al
l
bein
g
care
d
fo
r
a
t
th
e
home
.
Th
e
appellan
t
wa
s
acquitte
d
o
n
tw
o
o
f
th
e
counts
o
f
indecen
t
assaul
t
bu
t
foun
d
guilt
y
o
n
th
e
remainin
g
counts
.
O
n
appea
l
t
o
the
Cap
e
Hig
h
Cour
t
th
e
convictio
n
o
n
th
e
sodom
y
charg
e
wa
s
se
t
asid
e
bu
t
the
conviction
s
o
n
th
e
fou
r
indecen
t
assaul
t
charge
s
wer
e
confirmed
.
H
e
no
w
appeals
agains
t
thes
e
convictions.
[2
]
I
n
vie
w
o
f
th
e
natur
e
o
f
th
e
charge
s
an
d
th
e
ag
e
o
f
th
e
complainant
s
i
t
i
s
well
t
o
remin
d
onesel
f
a
t
th
e
outse
t
that
,
whils
t
ther
e
i
s
n
o
statutor
y
requiremen
t
tha
t
a
child’
s
evidenc
e
mus
t
b
e
corroborated
,
i
t
ha
s
lon
g
bee
n
accepte
d
tha
t
th
e
evidence
o
f
youn
g
childre
n
shoul
d
b
e
treate
d
wit
h
cautio
n
(
R
v
Mand
a
1951(3
)
S
A
15
8
(A)
a
t
16
3
C
;
Woj
i
v
Santam
Insurance
Co
Limited
1981(1
)
S
A
102
0
(A
)
a
t
102
8
B-
D)
;
an
d
tha
t
th
e
evidenc
e
i
n
a
particula
r
cas
e
involvin
g
sexua
l
misconduc
t
ma
y
call
fo
r
a
cautionar
y
approach
(
S
v
J
1998(2
)
S
A
98
4
(SCA
)
a
t
1009B)
.
Fo
r
reasons
whic
h
wil
l
presentl
y
emerg
e
th
e
presen
t
cas
e
i
s
plainl
y
on
e
whic
h
call
s
fo
r
caution.
[3
]
Befor
e
I
dea
l
wit
h
eac
h
coun
t
i
n
tur
n
I
wis
h
t
o
mak
e
th
e
followin
g
general
observations:
(i
)
Th
e
magistrat
e
faile
d
t
o
properl
y
appreciat
e
th
e
significanc
e
of
th
e
onu
s
whic
h
reste
d
upo
n
th
e
State
.
I
n
hi
s
reason
s
h
e
state
d
:
“
The
accused’
s
failur
e
t
o
convinc
e
th
e
cour
t
i
s
a
further
guarante
e
o
f
th
e
veracit
y
o
f
th
e
evidenc
e
tendere
d
b
y
th
e
State.”
I
t
i
s
trit
e
tha
t
ther
e
i
s
n
o
obligatio
n
upo
n
a
n
accuse
d
person
,
wher
e
the
Stat
e
bear
s
th
e
onus
,
“t
o
convinc
e
th
e
court”
.
I
f
hi
s
versio
n
is
reasonabl
y
possibl
y
tru
e
h
e
i
s
entitle
d
t
o
hi
s
acquitta
l
eve
n
thoug
h
his
explanatio
n
i
s
improbable
.
A
cour
t
i
s
no
t
entitle
d
t
o
convic
t
unles
s
it
i
s
satisfie
d
no
t
onl
y
tha
t
th
e
explanatio
n
i
s
improbabl
e
bu
t
tha
t
beyond
an
y
reasonabl
e
doub
t
i
t
i
s
false
.
I
t
i
s
permissibl
e
t
o
loo
k
a
t
the
probabilitie
s
o
f
th
e
cas
e
t
o
determin
e
whethe
r
th
e
accused’
s
version
i
s
reasonabl
y
possibl
y
tru
e
bu
t
whethe
r
on
e
subjectivel
y
believe
s
him
i
s
no
t
th
e
test
.
A
s
pointe
d
ou
t
i
n
man
y
judgment
s
o
f
thi
s
Cour
t
and
othe
r
court
s
th
e
tes
t
i
s
whethe
r
ther
e
i
s
a
reasonabl
e
possibilit
y
tha
t
the
accused’
s
evidenc
e
ma
y
b
e
true.
(ii
)
I
d
o
no
t
fin
d
i
t
improbabl
e
(a
s
th
e
magistrat
e
did
)
tha
t
the
c
omplainant
s
woul
d
conspir
e
t
o
fabricat
e
charge
s
agains
t
the
appellant
.
Th
e
magistrat
e
i
s
incorrec
t
whe
n
h
e
state
s
i
n
hi
s
judgment
tha
t
“n
o
evidenc
e
wa
s
forthcomin
g
t
o
thi
s
effect”
.
O
n
th
e
contrary,
th
e
appellan
t
ha
s
suggeste
d
reasonabl
e
ground
s
fo
r
suspectin
g
tha
t
at
leas
t
som
e
o
f
th
e
witnesse
s
fo
r
th
e
Stat
e
ma
y
hav
e
ha
d
a
grudge
agains
t
hi
m
an
d
th
e
evidenc
e
o
f
Andrew
s
(
a
chil
d
car
e
worke
r
o
f
the
Home
)
indicate
s
tha
t
Andrew
s
ma
y
wel
l
hav
e
ha
d
a
motiv
e
t
o
wis
h
to
implicat
e
hi
m
falsely
.
I
fin
d
nothin
g
“inherentl
y
improbable
”
i
n
the
evidenc
e
o
f
th
e
appellan
t
t
o
th
e
effec
t
tha
t
Andrew
s
an
d
Mis
s
Terry
(
a
socia
l
worke
r
employe
d
a
t
th
e
Home
)
woul
d
fabricat
e
evidence
agains
t
him
.
Th
e
appellan
t
ha
s
suggeste
d
reason
s
fo
r
thi
s
whic
h
are
no
t
s
o
fa
r
fetche
d
a
s
t
o
b
e
summaril
y
rejected.
(iii
)
I
t
i
s
o
f
littl
e
valu
e
t
o
judg
e
a
n
accuse
d
o
n
hi
s
demeanou
r
i
n
the
witnes
s
bo
x
an
d
t
o
convic
t
o
n
thi
s
ground
.
I
n
thi
s
regar
d
the
magistrat
e
state
s
tha
t
“th
e
accuse
d
wa
s
il
l
a
t
eas
e
whe
n
testifying”.
Suc
h
conduc
t
i
s
no
t
unusua
l
no
r
surprisin
g
amongs
t
accuse
d
persons
o
r
indee
d
witnesse
s
generall
y
wh
o
ma
y
b
e
afrai
d
o
r
eve
n
overwhelmed
a
t
th
e
experienc
e
o
f
givin
g
evidenc
e
i
n
a
court
,
possibl
y
fo
r
th
e
first
time
.
(Se
e
th
e
remark
s
o
f
Diemon
t
J
A
i
n
S
v
Kell
y
1980(3
)
SA
301(A
)
a
t
30
8
B-
G
an
d
H
C
Nichola
s
“Credibilit
y
o
f
Witnesses
”
32
198
5
SAL
J
a
t
36-3
7
whic
h
ar
e
particularl
y
apposit
e
i
n a
cas
e
lik
e
the
presen
t
wher
e
th
e
appellan
t
becam
e
emotiona
l
eve
n
whil
e
som
e
o
f
the
stat
e
witnesse
s
wer
e
testifying.)
(iv
)
I
fin
d
th
e
magistrate’
s
finding
s
concernin
g
th
e
witnesses
Osmon
d
an
d
Beuke
s
somewha
t
inconsistent
.
O
n
th
e
on
e
han
d
he
use
s
thei
r
evidenc
e
t
o
discredi
t
th
e
appellan
t
an
d
o
n
th
e
othe
r
hand
state
s
tha
t
thei
r
evidenc
e
“mus
t
b
e
regarde
d
a
s
o
f
n
o
value”
.
Plainly
th
e
magistrat
e
canno
t
hav
e
i
t
bot
h
ways
.
Eithe
r
thei
r
evidenc
e
i
s
of
valu
e
o
r
i
t
i
s
not.
(v
)
I
t
i
s
importan
t
t
o
bea
r
i
n
min
d
tha
t
ther
e
wa
s
a
lon
g
dela
y
before
th
e
charge
s
wer
e
trie
d
i
n
court
.
Mos
t
o
f
th
e
incident
s
occurre
d
3
years
befor
e
th
e
trial
.
Whils
t
thi
s
ma
y
affor
d
som
e
excus
e
fo
r
discrepancies
i
t
nevertheles
s
require
s
on
e
t
o
b
e
cautiou
s
whe
n
evaluatin
g
the
evidence.
[4
]
Th
e
firs
t
coun
t
concern
s
th
e
complainan
t
C.E.
wh
o
was
si
x
year
s
ol
d
a
t
th
e
tim
e
o
f
th
e
allege
d
offenc
e
an
d
9
year
s
o
f
ag
e
a
t
th
e
tim
e
tha
t
he
gav
e
evidence
.
Hi
s
evidenc
e
i
s
t
o
th
e
effec
t
tha
t
th
e
appellan
t
masturbate
d
hi
m
at
th
e
latter’
s
hous
e
i
n
Strandfontein
.
H
e
demonstrate
d
thi
s
t
o
th
e
witnes
s
Andrews
an
d
agai
n
i
n
court
.
Bu
t
Andrew
s
describe
d
th
e
actio
n
demonstrate
d
t
o
hi
m
a
s
a
“twistin
g
movement
”
whic
h
i
s
no
t
ho
w
i
t
wa
s
demonstrate
d
i
n
court
.
I
cannot
accep
t
th
e
magistrate’
s
statemen
t
tha
t
th
e
differenc
e
i
s
“purel
y
a
semantic
difference”
.
I
t
i
s
importan
t
t
o
not
e
tha
t
th
e
complainan
t
acknowledge
s
that
,
afte
r
he
ha
d
ru
n
awa
y
fro
m
an
d
ha
d
eventuall
y
bee
n
returne
d
t
o
th
e
home
,
th
e
appellan
t
had
give
n
hi
m
a
hidin
g
an
d
tha
t
h
e
wa
s
cros
s
wit
h
th
e
appellant
.
Moreover
,
th
e
incident a
llegedl
y
occurre
d
shortl
y
afte
r
Terr
y
ha
d
joine
d
th
e
staf
f
o
f
th
e
hom
e
a
s
a
social
worker
.
I
t
i
s
commo
n
caus
e
tha
t
th
e
appellan
t
aske
d
Terr
y
t
o
investigate
E.’
s
allegation
s
an
d
tha
t
sh
e
reporte
d
t
o
th
e
appellan
t
an
d
t
o
a
ful
l
staff
meetin
g
tha
t
sh
e
coul
d
fin
d
n
o
basi
s
fo
r
them
.
Th
e
complainan
t
wa
s
referre
d
t
o
a
psychologist
fo
r
furthe
r
investigation
.
Th
e
psychologis
t
wa
s
no
t
calle
d
t
o
give
evidenc
e
a
s
t
o
wha
t
h
e
found
.
I
t
i
s
mos
t
extraordinar
y
tha
t
suddenly
,
almos
t
a
year
later
,
th
e
sam
e
allegation
s
cam
e
t
o
th
e
surface
.
Terr
y
wa
s
no
t
abl
e
t
o
explain
satisfactoril
y
wh
y
sh
e
the
n
believe
d
th
e
complainan
t
havin
g
previousl
y
no
t
believed
him
.
He
r
attempte
d
explanatio
n
seem
s
t
o
b
e
highl
y
suspec
t
puttin
g
i
t
a
t
it
s
lowest.
Weighe
d
agains
t
th
e
appellant’
s
denia
l
tha
t
anythin
g
imprope
r
occurre
d
an
d
the
improbabilit
y
tha
t
th
e
appellan
t
woul
d
(a
s
E.
claimed
)
hav
e
switche
d
on
th
e
ligh
t
i
n
th
e
dinin
g
roo
m
whil
e
othe
r
boy
s
wer
e
i
n
th
e
smal
l
hous
e
an
d
while
allegedl
y
openl
y
masturbatin
g
th
e
complainant
,
ther
e
i
s
considerabl
e
doub
t
a
s
to
th
e
veracit
y
o
f
th
e
complainant’
s
account.
[5
]
Th
e
magistrat
e
relie
s
heavil
y
upo
n
th
e
evidenc
e
o
f
Andrew
s
a
s
corroborating
tha
t
o
f
th
e
complainant
.
Andrew
s
wa
s
foun
d
t
o
b
e
untruthfu
l
regardin
g
certain
evidenc
e
tha
t
h
e
gav
e
i
n
cross-examinatio
n
concernin
g
hi
s
qualifications
.
His
untruthfulnes
s
i
n
thi
s
regar
d
canno
t
simpl
y
b
e
brushe
d
asid
e
upo
n
th
e
basi
s
tha
t
it
i
s
no
t
directl
y
relevan
t
t
o
th
e
matter
s
i
n
issue
.
I
t
i
s
plai
n
tha
t
Andrew
s
ma
y
well
hav
e
ha
d
ground
s
fo
r
bia
s
agains
t
th
e
appellan
t
wh
o
ha
d
reporte
d
hi
m
fo
r
bein
g
late,
absen
t
an
d
a
n
inefficien
t
chil
d
car
e
worker
.
Al
l
thi
s
le
d
t
o
Andrew
s
losin
g
his
bonus
.
Admittedly
,
th
e
fac
t
tha
t
h
e
lie
d
abou
t
hi
s
qualification
s
doe
s
not
necessar
i
l
y
brin
g
abou
t
tha
t
th
e
res
t
o
f
hi
s
evidenc
e
i
s
suspect
;
bu
t
ther
e
i
s
an
obviou
s
nee
d
fo
r
cautio
n
an
d
ther
e
i
s
n
o
indicatio
n
i
n
th
e
magistrate’
s
reason
s
that
h
e
realize
d
this.
[6
]
Th
e
complainan
t
i
n
coun
t
3
wa
s
C.N.N.
.
Th
e
appellan
t
i
s
allege
d
t
o
have
indecentl
y
assaulte
d
hi
m
b
y
kissin
g
hi
m
o
n
on
e
occasio
n
a
t
th
e
appellant’
s
house
i
n
Strandfontei
n
“i
n
a
ladylik
e
fashion”
.
N.
wa
s
1
7
year
s
o
f
ag
e
a
t
th
e
tim
e
o
f
the
allege
d
offenc
e
an
d
1
9
year
s
whe
n
h
e
gav
e
evidence
.
H
e
testifie
d
tha
t
th
e
kis
s
was
“ove
r
affectionate”
.
Th
e
appellant’
s
evidenc
e
wa
s
tha
t
h
e
kisse
d
N.
i
n
a
fatherly
an
d
no
t
indecen
t
way
.
Accordin
g
t
o
N.
h
e
firs
t
mad
e
a
repor
t
abou
t
th
e
kis
s
t
o
one
Wallace
.
Wallac
e
wa
s
no
t
calle
d
t
o
giv
e
evidence
.
A
s
ther
e
i
s
n
o
indicatio
n
that
h
e
wa
s
no
t
availabl
e
on
e
i
s
entitle
d
t
o
dra
w
a
n
advers
e
inferenc
e
agains
t
th
e
State.
Moreover
,
ther
e
ar
e
contradiction
s
i
n
Nel’
s
evidenc
e
a
s
t
o
whethe
r
o
r
no
t
h
e
went
t
o
th
e
appellant’
s
residenc
e
afte
r
th
e
allege
d
incident
.
I
fin
d
hi
s
statemen
t
tha
t
he
coul
d
no
t
remembe
r
whethe
r
o
r
no
t
h
e
ha
d
don
e
s
o
t
o
b
e
evasive
.
Thi
s
i
s
certainly
no
t
anothe
r
“semanti
c
discrepancy
”
a
s
th
e
magistrat
e
found
.
Th
e
appellant
contend
s
i
n
hi
s
head
s
o
f
argumen
t
tha
t
th
e
necessar
y
intentio
n
t
o
assaul
t
wa
s
not
prove
d
i
n
relatio
n
t
o
thi
s
coun
t
no
r
wa
s
i
t
bee
n
prove
d
tha
t
th
e
assaul
t
wa
s
o
f
an
indecen
t
nature
.
Ther
e
ma
y
b
e
som
e
substanc
e
i
n
thi
s
contentio
n
an
d
als
o
i
n
the
contentio
n
tha
t
eve
n
i
f
on
e
accept
s
Nel’
s
evidenc
e
th
e
assaul
t
wa
s
no
t
o
f
any
significanc
e
an
d
tha
t
th
e
maxi
m
d
e
minimi
s
no
n
cura
t
le
x
applies
.
I
n
th
e
ligh
t
of
m
y
vie
w
o
f
th
e
othe
r
unsatisfactor
y
aspect
s
o
f
th
e
appellant’
s
convictio
n
o
n
this
coun
t
i
t
i
s
no
t
necessar
y
t
o
com
e
t
o
a
fir
m
decision.
[7
]
Th
e
complainan
t
i
n
coun
t
4
wa
s
V.H.
wh
o
wa
s
1
6
year
s
ol
d
at
th
e
tim
e
o
f
th
e
allege
d
offence
.
H
e
allege
s
tha
t
on
e
nigh
t
th
e
appellan
t
crep
t
into
th
e
roo
m
whic
h
h
e
wa
s
sharin
g
wit
h
on
e
Beuke
s
wher
e
h
e
pushe
d
hi
s
han
d
int
o
the
complainant’
s
trousers
,
playe
d
wit
h
hi
s
peni
s
an
d
trie
d
t
o
kis
s
hi
m
o
n
hi
s
lip
s
and
pu
t
hi
s
tongu
e
int
o
hi
s
mouth
.
H
e
wa
s
unabl
e
t
o
sa
y
whe
n
th
e
inciden
t
occurred
sav
e
t
o
stat
e
tha
t
i
t
too
k
plac
e
o
n
a
Saturda
y
o
r
Sunda
y
nigh
t
i
n
th
e
appellant’s
cott
ag
e
a
t
th
e
home
.
Th
e
complainan
t
allege
s
tha
t
h
e
tol
d
P.L.L.
(the
complainan
t
i
n
coun
t
6
)
abou
t
th
e
incident
.
Initiall
y
L.
di
d
no
t
corroborat
e
the
complainan
t
i
n
thi
s
regar
d
an
d
whe
n
i
t
wa
s
pu
t
t
o
hi
m
wha
t
H.
ha
d
said
,
he
change
d
hi
s
evidenc
e
an
d
sai
d
tha
t
h
e
kne
w
tha
t
H.
ha
d
sai
d
somethin
g
to
hi
m
bu
t
coul
d
no
t
recal
l
i
f
h
e
ha
d
give
n
hi
m
th
e
ful
l
story
.
Th
e
evidenc
e
reveals
tha
t
th
e
appellan
t
an
d
th
e
complainan
t
ha
d
clashe
d
o
n
a
numbe
r
o
f
occasions
.
The
firs
t
relate
d
t
o
a
n
inciden
t
whe
n
th
e
complainan
t
ha
d
seriousl
y
damage
d
a
vehicle
belongin
g
t
o
th
e
hom
e
whic
h
h
e
ha
d
take
n
withou
t
consent
.
Th
e
appellant
’
evidence
t
o
th
e
effec
t
tha
t
th
e
complainan
t
ha
d
bee
n
i
n
a
polic
e
cel
l
becaus
e
o
f
thi
s
fo
r
nearly
a
wee
k
an
d
ha
d
bee
n
punishe
d
wa
s
no
t
challenged
.
Ther
e
wer
e
othe
r
incidents
relatin
g
t
o
th
e
disappearanc
e
o
f
mone
y
fro
m
th
e
home’
s
saf
e
whic
h
involve
d
the
complainant
.
Ther
e
i
s
accordingl
y
a
t
leas
t
a
reasonabl
e
basi
s
fo
r
believin
g
tha
t
the
complainan
t
mus
t
hav
e
harboure
d
som
e
il
l
feeling
s
toward
s
th
e
appellant
.
One
canno
t
safel
y
rel
y
upo
n
hi
s
evidenc
e
an
d
conclud
e
tha
t
h
e
i
s
tellin
g
th
e
truth
.
The
appellan
t
denie
s
tha
t
h
e
ha
d
eve
r
don
e
anythin
g
imprope
r
t
o
H.
.
Wha
t
he
di
d
o
n
occasio
n
wa
s
t
o
chec
k
whethe
r
th
e
complainan
t
ha
d
we
t
hi
s
be
d
(which
,
it
i
s
commo
n
cause
,
th
e
complainan
t
ofte
n
did)
.
I
canno
t
accep
t
th
e
magistrate’s
findin
g
tha
t
i
t
i
s
inherentl
y
improbabl
e
tha
t
a
n
adul
t
woul
d
plac
e
hi
s
hand
s
unde
r
the
beddin
g
t
o
determin
e
whethe
r
th
e
be
d
wa
s
we
t
withou
t
firs
t
wakin
g
it
s
occupant
an
d
that
,
fo
r
thi
s
reason
,
th
e
appellant’
s
evidenc
e
fel
l
t
o
b
e
rejected.
[8
]
Th
e
complainan
t
i
n
coun
t
6
was
,
a
s
previousl
y
stated
,
P.L.L.
wh
o
was
1
8
year
s
ol
d
a
t
th
e
tim
e
o
f
th
e
allege
d
offence
.
H
e
testifie
d
abou
t
tw
o
incidents.
Th
e
firs
t
wa
s
whe
n
th
e
appellan
t
allegedl
y
touche
d
hi
s
privat
e
part
s
throug
h
his
trouser
s
whil
e
h
e
wa
s
i
n
bed
.
Th
e
othe
r
occurre
d
abou
t
tw
o
week
s
late
r
whe
n
the
appellan
t
allegedl
y
agai
n
pu
t
hi
s
hand
s
int
o
th
e
complainant’
s
trouser
s
and
touche
d
hi
s
privat
e
parts
.
Th
e
appellan
t
denie
s
tha
t
h
e
behave
d
i
n
th
e
manner
stated
.
Ther
e
i
s
n
o
corroboratio
n
o
f
th
e
complainant’
s
evidence
.
Hi
s
evidenc
e
is
unsatisfactor
y
an
d
unreliabl
e
i
n
severa
l
respects
.
Ther
e
i
s
considerabl
e
substance
i
n
th
e
argumen
t
advance
d
i
n
th
e
appellant’
s
head
s
o
f
argumen
t
t
o
th
e
effec
t
tha
t
the
complainan
t
ha
s
a
proble
m
i
n
separatin
g
realit
y
fro
m
unreality
.
Indee
d
the
complainan
t
state
d
i
n
cross-examinatio
n
tha
t
th
e
firs
t
inciden
t
migh
t
wel
l
hav
e
been
a
drea
m
o
n
hi
s
part
.
Th
e
appellant’
s
evidenc
e
tha
t
th
e
complainan
t
wa
s
referre
d
to
a
hospita
l
fo
r
psychiatri
c
car
e
wa
s
no
t
denie
d
b
y
th
e
complainan
t
no
r
challenged
b
y
th
e
State
.
An
y
abus
e
o
f
th
e
complainan
t
woul
d
undoubtedl
y
hav
e
com
e
ou
t
in
th
e
psychiatri
c
evaluation
.
Ther
e
i
s
n
o
evidenc
e
tha
t
i
t
did
.
I
t
i
s
als
o
unlikel
y
that
th
e
appellan
t
woul
d
hav
e
referre
d
th
e
complainan
t
fo
r
suc
h
evaluatio
n
i
f
h
e
ha
d
been
guilt
y
o
f
abusin
g
him.
[9
]
I
n
al
l
o
f
th
e
circumstance
s
I
believ
e
tha
t
th
e
magistrat
e
wa
s
incorrec
t
in
convictin
g
th
e
appellan
t
o
n
th
e
fou
r
count
s
i
n
question.
I
n
th
e
resul
t
th
e
appea
l
i
s
allowe
d
an
d
th
e
conviction
s
an
d
sentences
i
n
questio
n
ar
e
se
t
aside.
________________________
R
H
ZULMA
N
JA
HEFE
R
J
A
)
MTHIYAN
E
AJ
A
)
CONCUR