Ndewingia s/o Paulo v. R., (PC) Crim. App. 24-A-67, 4/12/67, Seaton J.

Ndewingia s/o Paulo v. R., (PC) Crim. App. 24-A-67, 4/12/67, Seaton J.

Accused was convicted of housebreaking and stealing. He was tried together with his brother who was acquitted. In response to questioning by the court, the brother stated that he thought goods found in their house had been stolen by his brother “because he is a thief and he goes to prison frequently.” He also stated that accused had recently completed a prison sentence.

            Held: It was improper for the court to admit evidence tending to prove that accused had been previously convicted of theft or had a bad character. The introduction of this evidence was prejudicial in this case. Conviction quashed.