The State v Jesca Marare

On 24 November 2013 at Marufu village, Chief Nyakunhuwa, Zaka, the accused struck Violet Mapondera (the deceased) once on the head and twice on the left hand with an axe, causing her death. Around 1 a.m., Alice Severa (the deceased's daughter-in-law) heard loud bangs on the kitchen door and the accused threatening to kill Alice and her daughter. The accused called out that she had killed Zimuto (the deceased). When people arrived, they found the deceased in a pool of blood with severe head injuries and a compound fracture of the humerus. The deceased died shortly thereafter. The accused had a history of mental illness dating back to 2002/2003 following childbirth. She was previously treated at Ngomahuru Hospital but had stopped taking her medication. Her family reported numerous bizarre behaviors including walking naked, rubbing ash on her body, and giving birth alone before placing the baby in a box on a bus. At the time of the offense, the accused was experiencing visual hallucinations and paranoid delusions.

• Whether the accused committed the act of killing the deceased
• Whether the accused was mentally disordered at the time of committing the offense so as to lack criminal capacity
• Whether a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity should be returned in terms of section 29(2) of the Mental Health Act
• What appropriate order should be made regarding the accused's detention and treatment

A special verdict was returned finding the accused not guilty by reason of insanity. The accused was ordered to be returned to Chikurubi Psychiatric Unit in terms of section 29(2)(a) of the Mental Health Act.

Where a court is satisfied from evidence, including medical evidence, that an accused person committed the act constituting the offense charged but was mentally disordered at the time of committing the act so as to lack criminal capacity in terms of section 248 of the Criminal Law Code, the court must return a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity in terms of section 29(2) of the Mental Health Act. Following such a verdict, where the accused has recovered but there remains a risk of relapse and the family is unwilling to provide support, the court may order detention in a psychiatric institution under section 29(2)(a) to allow the Mental Health Review Tribunal to determine fitness for discharge in due course.

The court noted that despite the accused's mental illness, she had never previously been violent against the public, suggesting that the offense was out of character and directly attributable to her untreated mental disorder. The court also observed that the family does not appear willing to take responsibility for the accused if she were to be discharged, which influenced the decision to order institutional detention rather than immediate discharge despite her recovery.

This case demonstrates the application of the Mental Health Act Chapter 15:12 section 29(2) in Zimbabwean criminal proceedings where an accused person is found to have committed an offense while mentally disordered. It illustrates how courts balance the finding that an accused committed a criminal act with the recognition that mental disorder can negate criminal capacity, leading to a special verdict rather than conviction. The case also shows the court's consideration of public safety and the accused's ongoing treatment needs when determining the appropriate order following such a verdict, particularly where there is risk of relapse and lack of family support for community-based treatment.