State claims Pistorius is conflating the law to prove his case
The State filed its responding papers for the ConCourt, which will decide whether it hears Pistorius's case.
JOHANNESBURG - State Prosecutors have urged the Constitutional Courtnot to entertain Oscar Pistorius attempt to appeal his murder conviction, arguing that its without merit.
The State filed its responding papers in the ConCourt today, which will now decide whether it will allow Pistorius to argue his case.
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) set aside the athletes culpable homicide conviction last year, and instead found him guilty of murder.
WATCH: SCA: Oscar Pistorius murdered Reeva Steenkamp
Pistorius shot and killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Valentines Day three years ago, he claims he thought she was an intruder.
State Prosecutor Andrea Johnsons 50- page affidavit is teeming with case law that attacks Pistoriuss claim that the Supreme Court arrived at the wrong conclusion.
The athletes legal team argued that the SCA failed to consider one specific componentofdolus eventualis before setting aside his culpable homicide conviction.
Johnson points out that the defence failed to reference any case law to support this argument.
She argues that Pistorius has only himself to blame for the courts negative findings on his credibility, which means there is no credible explanation for the killing of Steenkamp.
The prosecutor says the points of law raised by Pistoriuss legal team are totally unmeritorious and the application has no prospect of success.
DONT GET IT TWISTED
State prosecutors have also argued that the defence team has introduced an entirely foreign interpretation ofdolus eventualisin an attempt to appeal his murder conviction.
Johnson says Pistoriuss legal teams argument that the SCA was mistaken on the law ofdolus eventualisis without merit and contrived.
She says nowhere is there authority in any case law or mainstream academic literature that the question ofdolus eventualisshould be formulated as the defence team argues.
Johnson says Pistorius impermissibly attempts to confuse or conflate elements in the law to prove his case, and introduces an entirely alien and anomalous conception of the law.
The advocate says the law is clear and theres been no deviation from the accepted definition and application ofdolus eventualis.