JAMES NARMAH, Appellant, v. REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA, Appellee.

JUDGMENT WITHOUT OPINION

Decided February 25, 1988.

At the call of this case, the plaintiff/appellee was represented by Counsellor J. McDonald Krakue, Solicitor General of Liberia who made the following submission:

“1. That the indictment charges the defendant with the crime of THEFT OF SERVICES which, accordingly to our new Penal Law, Sec. 19.52, defines theft of services as follows:

(a) A person is guilty of theft if he obtains services, known by him to be available only for compensation, by deception, threat, false token or other means to avoid payment for the services, or

(b) Having control over the disposition of services of another to which he is not entitled, he diverts those services to his own benefit or to the benefit of another not entitled. Where compensation for services is ordinarily raid immediately, upon their rendition as is the case of hotels, restaurants, and comparable establishments, absconding without payment or making provision to pay is prima facie evidence that the services were obtained by deception.

2. Appellee submits that an inspection and perusal of the records in this case reveal that there is a lack of legal proof necessary to sustain a conviction of the crime as charged, and that the evidence adduced by the State, during the trial in the court below is in the mind of the appellee, a fit subject for civil redress through a court of competent jurisdiction. Hence, appellant motion in arrest of judgment, filed in the lower court, should have been granted in the interest of justice, for “in all trials upon indictment, it is unequivocally stated that for the State to convict in criminal cases, the guilt of the accused must be proved with such legal certainty as to exclude every reasonable doubt; the material facts essential to constitute the crime charged must also be proved beyond a rational doubt or the accused will be entitled to a discharge.”

He therefore prayed that the conviction of the defendant/ appellant in the court below, being unlawful, that this Court will have the defendant/appellant discharged from further answering the said charge without delay.

After a careful consideration of the submission, the records, facts and circumstances in the case, together with the law, it is hereby adjudged that the submission is hereby granted. The judgment of the court below is reversed. The defendant is discharged from further answering the charge of theft of services.

The Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to send a mandate to the court below informing it of this judgment, with instruction that it resumes jurisdiction over the cause of action and proceed to discharge the defendant/appellant from further answering the crime of theft of services. And it is hereby so ordered.

NOTE: Chief Justice Emmanuel N. Gbalazeh was not present when this case was heard. Hence, he did not sign this judgment.