IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Aliimatafitafi [2026] WSSC 9 (23 March 2026)

Case name: 	Police v Aliimatafitafi	
		
Citation: 	[2026] WSSC 9	
		
Decision date: 	23 March 2026	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Informant) v SEMISI ALIIMATAFITAFI (Defendant), male of Matautu-Uta	
		
Hearing date(s): 	04th, 05th, 16th and 17th March 2026	
		
File number(s): 	2023-02779/SC/CR/UP	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Supreme Court, CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Tuatagaloa	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	The defendant, Semisi Aliimatafitafi is pursuant to section 103 of the Crimes Act 2013 sentenced to imprisonment for life.

Representation: 	F. Ioane for Prosecution
I. Sapolu for Defendant	
		
Catchwords: 	Criminal law – murder – intent – reckless indifference – eyewitness testimony – forensic corroboration – weapon identification –  life imprisonment - armed with dangerous weapon, unlawful firearm - presenting firearm – possession of unlawful ammunition – discharging firearm without reasonable cause – unlawful act	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	•	Criminal Procedure Act 2016; ss125 & 126
•	Crimes Act 2013, sections 99 & 100
•	ibid, ss102 & 108, ibid, s15, ibid, s7(1)(4)
•	Police Offences Ordinance 1961, s25
•	Arms Ordinance 1960, s12(3)
•	Police Offences Ordinance 1961	
		
Cases cited:	•	Police v Lemuelu [2026] WSSC 2 (20 February 2026) on application for judge alone under s125

Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

AND:

SEMISI ALIIMATAFITAFI

Defendant
	
Counsel:		F. Ioane for Prosecution
 			I. Sapolu for the Defendant 

Hearing:		4th – 5th, 16th – 17th February 2026
Submissions:		10th March 2026
Decision:		23rd March 2026

DECISION OF JUSTICE TUATAGALOA
The Court reserved its decision after hearing Counsels final submissions. This is that decision.
Introduction
1. 	The offence of murder or any other where the penalty is life imprisonment is usually trial by assessors. This case however was by Judge alone pursuant to section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2016 (CPA 2016). Prior to the current CPA 2016 under the Criminal Procedure Act 1976, cases where penalty for the offence is life imprisonment was always by assessor trial. The CPA 2016 introduced the alternative where one could opt for trial by Judge alone where an assessor trial would have been the only option. 
2. 	In an assessor trial, the trial judge is the authority on the law and is to decide whether the essential elements constituting the alleged offences have been proved beyond reasonable doubt with the assessors as finders of facts. At present, I am the finder of facts and the authority on the law which is no different from the role of the Judge in any other case that comes before the Court. 
The charges
3. 	The defendant, Semisi Aliimatafitafi, is charged with the murder of Ata Vaalua a.k.a. Oloa Tom, on the 23rd August 2023. An alternative charge of manslaughter was also filed against Semisi.
4. 	It is alleged that Semisi committed the offending using a 25-caliber pistol and is also charged with related offences to the pistol as follows:
(i) 	Armed with dangerous weapon; 
(ii) 	Unlawful firearm;
(iii) 	Presenting firearm;
(iv) 	Possession of unlawful ammunition;
(v) 	Discharging firearm without reasonable cause;
Elements of the main offences
5. 	Murder
(a) 	That the defendant, Semisi Aliimatafitafi committed an unlawful act;
(b) 	The unlawful act caused the death of Ata Vaalua; and
(c) 	That at the material time, Semisi had the criminal intent to kill Ata or that he caused bodily harm known to him to cause death but was recklessly indifferent. 	
6. 	Manslaughter (alternative)
(a) 	That the defendant, Semisi Aliimatafitafi, committed an unlawful act; and
(b) 	The unlawful act caused the death of Ata Vaalua a.k.a. Oloa Tom.
7. 	The prosecution carries the onus of proving any criminal charge or offending beyond reasonable doubt. This onus remains with the prosecution and never shifts to the defendant.
8. 	All facts need not to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, only the elements of each charge.
The Evidence
Defense Position
9. 	The defendant exercised his constitutional right not to give evidence.  Counsel for the defense advanced the following:
(i) 	The defendant did not have a pistol. Ownership of the pistol is not an element of the offences of murder or manslaughter.
(ii) 	There is no direct evidence establishing that the defendant fired the fatal shot; and
(iii) 	The pistol found with the defendant could not have discharged the fatal shot, asserting that the weapon was broken or inoperable. No independent evidence was called to support this claim. 
The Prosecution case
10. 	The prosecution presented a comprehensive case, calling fourteen witnesses, two of whom were tendered by consent. The evidence presented is extensive and strongly implicates the defendant. The prosecution called the following witnesses:
Police & Technical Witnesses: 
•	Constable Me Tuuaga: Produced photographs of the crime scene.
•	IT Officers Changwang Fua and Senior IT Timothy Komiti: Gave evidence on the handling of technical material – video footage. 
•	Constable Siemu Arona (Exhibit Officer): Recorded pistol and bullets recovered during a vehicle search conducted by Constables Monson Noue and Faigalotu Slade.
•	Constable Pula Tafatolu (TOS Unit):  Logged firearms and ammunitions received from Sergeant Paulo Cordtz, passed on by Constable Siemu on 1 September 2023.
•	Corporal Sio Sapa’u (Arms Specialist): Provided expert testimony on firearm functionality.
•	Constable Tuli Filipo: Interviewed independent witness Sila Mareko and corrected the statement taken.
Medical & Forensic Witnesses	
•	Dr Nolan Fuamatu (by consent): Coroner’s Form
•	Dr James Kalougivaki (Forensic Pathologist): Testified on the cause of death and bullet trajectory.
•	Sergeant Leativalu Neemia: Produced photographs of the deceased taken during postmortem
•	Corporal Pisa Sei’a (Investigating Office): Attended the post-mortem and received the bullet removed from the body.
Civilian Witnesses
•	Sila Mareko (Independent witness): Present when the deceased was shot
•	Trevor Aloese: Owner of the house where shooting occurred.
11. 	Only two witnesses—Trevor Aloese and Sila Mareko—were present at the scene when the defendant allegedly shot the deceased. Their testimony is corroborated and reinforced by video footage obtained from Trevor’s residence, providing direct linkage between the defendant and the fatal shot.
Trevor Aloese
12. 	Trevor Aloese, the resident of the house where the incident occurred, gave evidence of considerable significance. His testimony situates both the deceased and the defendant at the scene and provides context to the events leading up to the shooting.
13. 	Trevor testified that on the morning of Wednesday, 23 August 2023, the deceased came to his house to purchase methamphetamine (“ice”). The deceased left but returned later in the afternoon. At that time, the defendant, who was residing at Trevor’s house, arrived in a vehicle accompanied by another man.
14. 	Trevor recalled hearing a commotion outside. In response, he retrieved his .22-caliber rifle, went into the kitchen, and fired a shot at a wheel cap he used for target practice.  He explained that his intention was to disperse those gathered outside. Shortly thereafter, he heard another gunshot outside. When he went out, still holding his rifle, he observed the deceased running from the breadfruit tree towards the main road. The deceased reached an electric line post, held onto it, and then collapsed.
15. 	Trevor further testified that he had seen the defendant with a small pistol. He described the weapon and later confirmed its identity when shown to him in court.
16. 	Under cross-examination, Trevor’s evidence was not materially undermined. While his own actions in firing a shot inside the house complicate the sequence of events, his testimony nonetheless corroborates the presence of the defendant at the scene with a pistol.
17. 	The Court finds Trevor’s evidence relevant and probative. Although his account does not directly identify the fatal shot, it supports the prosecution case by confirming the defendant’s possession of a firearm and placing him (defendant) at the scene immediately prior to the deceased’s collapse.
18. 	Trevor confirmed having video cameras outside his house and the video recorder that the Police IT Timothy Komiti extracted the footage from. The video footage obtained from Trevor’s home corroborates the evidence of Sila and Trevor to a certain extent.
Sila Mareko
19. 	The witness, Sila Mareko, was present at the scene when the deceased was shot. His proximity to the deceased and the defendant places him in a position to give direct evidence of the events.
20. 	Sila testified that when he arrived at Trevor’s house, he saw the deceased and another man standing under the breadfruit tree outside. Shortly thereafter, the defendant arrived in a black Voxy minivan, exited the vehicle, and approached the deceased. An argument ensued between the two men. During this exchange, Sila observed the defendant holding a small pistol and appearing angry. Moments later, he heard a gunshot and saw the deceased run before collapsing near an electric line post.
21. 	Sila stated that he heard two distinct gunshots. The first, louder shot, came from Trevor’s house and did not strike the deceased. The second, quieter shot, came from the breadfruit tree where the defendant and deceased were arguing. 
22. 	Following the shooting, Sila testified that the defendant returned to the vehicle and instructed him and his friend to drag the deceased under a shade near the breadfruit tree. He observed blood coming from the deceased’s mouth and chest.
23. 	Under cross-examination, Sila remained consistent. He rejected suggestions that only one gun was used or that the fatal shot came from Trevor’s house. He distinguished the shots by both sound and location and accurately described the small pistol in the defendant’s possession as well as the rifle used by Trevor, confirming both when shown in court. Sila was also able to identify the pistol being held by the defendant in the video footage.
24. 	The Court finds Sila’s testimony to be straightforward, credible, and unshaken under scrutiny. His evidence:
•	Distinguishes clearly between the two gunshots, attributing the fatal shot to the pistol held by the defendant;
•	Corroborates the forensic findings regarding the cause of death;
•	Confirms the defendant’s possession of a pistol at the scene; and
•	Provides direct eyewitness linkage between the defendant’s actions and the deceased’s collapse.
25. 	Accordingly, Sila’s testimony is accorded full evidentiary weight and substantially strengthens the prosecution case.
Police and Technical Witnesses
26. 	The evidence of Constables Monson Taua, Faigalotu Slade and Siemu Arona establishes that the defendant was located and apprehended six (6) days after the shooting, on 29 August 2023. Constable Faigalotu testified that police had received information that the defendant was travelling in a silver Mazda Demio owned by a man named Iakopo Ah Him. Acting on this information, police officers intercepted the vehicle at the intersection in front of Island Rock Company and escorted both the vehicle and its occupants to the police station where they were searched. The defendant was observed seated in the rear seat on the left side, directly behind the front passenger seat. 
27. 	A pistol in a brown paper bag, together with an empty shell and a live bullet, was recovered from the rear seat of the vehicle that was occupied by the defendant. These items were handed to Constable Siemu Arona, the designated Exhibit Officer responsible for processing exhibits from the vehicle search. Sergeant Paul Cordtz of the Tactical Operations Section (“TOS”) confirmed that on 1 September 2023, he received from Constable Siemu the pistol, a rifle, the empty shell, and a live bullet. He then directed Constable Pula Tafatolu of TOS to complete the requisite Exhibit Forms for both the pistol and the rifle.
28. 	Corporal Sio Sapa’u, an arms specialist within TOS, confirmed the pistol to be a 25-caliber pistol and the rifle to be a 22-calibre rifle. His evidence was that the rifle was tested and found to be fully functional. The pistol could not be test-fired because its firing pin had been removed. Corporal Sio explained that every firearm has a firing pin which can be removed or destroyed. He testified that the empty casing recovered was that of the pistol, proving that it had been fired, and that the slug handed to him was also from the 25-caliber pistol. He further clarified that bullets for the pistol and rifle are not the same. That is, the bullets for the pistol cannot be used by a 22-caliber rifle and vice versa. Finally, he noted that while the 22-caliber rifle is a legal weapon subject to registration, the pistol itself is an illegal firearm and prohibited in the country.
Forensic and Medical Evidence
29. 	Dr Nolan Fuamatuwas the attending physician when the deceased body arrived at the Moto’otua Hospital. Dr Fuamatu completed a Coroner’s Form requesting a postmortem to find the cause of death having observed a punctured wound on the deceased’s chest.
30. 	According to a forensic pathologist, Dr James Kalougivaki the gunshot wound was fatal. The bullet entered through the left chest, traversed the chest wall, severed the aorta, and passed through the upper left chamber of the heart and lodged itself in the left lung. It caused catastrophic damage to the heart and left lung, resulted in massive internal bleeding within the mediastinum and pleural cavity, and left approximately 1500 milliliters of blood and 350 grams of clotted blood. These injuries were immediately lethal and directly attributable to the pistol shot. 
31. 	The bullet recovered from the deceased left lung was placed in a plastic bottle and given to the investigating officer that was present during the postmortem. The bullet was later confirmed to be from the pistol linked to the defendant.
32. 	Constable Leativalu Neemia from Police Forensics gave evidence that he took two sets of photos of the deceased body at the hospital morgue – one before the postmortem and one at the time of postmortem. These photos assisted in the explanation by the forensic pathologist of the bullet trajectory and where it located itself inside the deceased’s body.
33. 	Corporal Pisa Sei’a, the investigating officer, confirmed being present during the postmortem and received the bullet from Dr Kalougivaki in a plastic bottle with a yellow cap.  Corporal Sei’a maintained evidence under cross-examination, that the bullet was removed from the deceased body by the pathologist, placed it in the plastic bottle and handed to him. Corporal also confirmed that he labelled the plastic bottle with the words ’Pol v Semisi Aliimatafitafi’.
Cause of Death
34. 	The forensic evidence establishes that the deceased died from severe traumatic chest injuries caused by a gunshot wound. The bullet severed the aorta, penetrated the heart, and severely damaged the left lung, resulting in catastrophic internal bleeding. The immediate causes of death were:
•	Severe hemopericardium – blood within the sac surrounding the heart; and
•	Severe hemothorax – blood within the cavity between the chest wall and lungs.
35. 	These conditions, arising directly from the gunshot wound, were immediately fatal and confirm that the manner of death was homicide.
Findings on the Evidence
36. 	The Court must determine whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed murder, or whether the evidence supports a lesser offence such as manslaughter. Central to this inquiry is the defendant’s mental state at the time of the shooting
(a) Actus Reus – the unlawful act
37. 	Careful consideration has been given to the entirety of the evidence, weighing its probative value, drawing appropriate inferences, and assessing witness credibility and demeanor.
38. 	The Court has considered the testimony of both Trevor Aloese and Sila Mareko, the two civilian witnesses present at the scene. Each accurately described and confirmed the weapons when shown in court, corroborating the arms specialist’s evidence on firearm functionality. Their testimony is supported by video evidence from Trevor’s residence, situating the defendant at the scene with a pistol. While distinct in perspective, their accounts are mutually reinforcing and consistent with forensic and technical findings.
39. 	The prosecution case is comprehensive and compelling. 
•	The defendant was present at the scene, armed with a pistol.
•	The pistol, casing, and slug recovered from the defendant’s possession directly link him to the fatal shooting.
•	Forensic evidence confirmed the fatal shot was fired from a .25-caliber pistol, not the .22-caliber rifle. 
•	Sila’s observation of blood from the deceased’s mouth and chest aligns with the forensic pathologist’s findings.
•	Trevor’s evidence establishes context, presence, and the defendant’s possession of a pistol; Sila’s testimony provides direct linkage between the pistol and the fatal shot. 
40. 	Together, their accounts form a coherent narrative, leaving the defence suggestion of weapon inoperability unsupported and is contradicted by expert and forensic evidence. The chain of custody is clear, and eyewitness accounts corroborate the forensic findings. The fatal shot is attributable to the pistol in the defendant’s possession. According to Corporal Sapa’u the .25-caliber pistol is illegal in Samoa.
(b) Mens reus: Intent or Reckless Indifference
41. 	Under the relevant statutory framework, murder requires proof that the defendant:
(i) 	Caused the death of the deceased; and
(ii) 	Did so with intent to kill, or with intent to cause bodily harm known to be likely to cause death, undertaken with reckless indifference to human life.
42. 	The witness, Sila Mareko, observed that the defendant confronted the deceased in anger, armed with a pistol, and discharged a shot at close range during a heated confrontation. This deliberate act strongly supports an inference of intent to kill.
43. 	Even if the defendant lacked the intent to kill, the act of firing a pistol at close range demonstrates knowledge that such conduct was likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. His actions therefore reveal reckless indifference to human life.
44. 	The forensic evidence establishes causation: the deceased died from a gunshot wound to the chest, consistent with the .25-caliber pistol linked to the defendant. Eyewitness testimony situates him at the scene, armed with that pistol, contemporaneous with the fatal shot. 
45. 	The Court finds that the prosecution has proved both the actus reus and mens rea of murder. The defendant’s conduct demonstrates either a direct intent to kill, or at minimum, an intent to cause bodily harm known to him to be likely to cause death, undertaken with reckless indifference.
Conclusion
46. 	On either basis, the mental element required for murder is satisfied. The evidence does not support reduction to manslaughter. The prosecution has proven the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt. 
47. 	The Court also finds that the following charges have also been proven beyond reasonable doubt:
(i) 	Armed with dangerous weapon; 
(ii) 	Unlawful firearm;’
(iii) 	Presenting firearm;
(iv) 	Possession of unlawful ammunition; and
(v) 	Discharging firearm without reasonable cause.
48. 	The defendant, Semisi Aliimatafitafi is pursuant to section 103 of the Crimes Act 2013 sentenced to imprisonment for life.
JUSTICE LEUTELE M TUATAGALOA