2. EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF/STANDARD OF PROOF: Burden and standard of proof in criminal cases; whether the burden of proof on the prosecution can shift to the accused person "Starting from the very beginning by re-stating the well entrenched position of the law in Criminal trials, it is merely a restatement of the time hallowed and immutable principle of law to say that the prosecution has the heavy and unshifting burden of proving the guilt of an accused person beyond reasonable doubt and with no corresponding duty on the accused to prove his innocence. See ASAKE VS THE NIG. ARMY COUNCIL & ANOR (2007) 1 NWLR (PT. 1015) 408; OGIDI VS THE STATE (2005) 5 NWLR (PT. 918) 286." Per WAMBAI, J.C.A. (P. 12, Paras. A-C) (...read in context) 3. EVIDENCE - CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT: Whether a retracted confessional statement can corroborate evidence "On the Appellant's submission that Exhibit A cannot corroborate the evidence of PW1, the law is settled that a retracted confessional statement of an accused is not only sufficient to corroborate evidence that requires corroboration, but is in itself sufficient to sustain the conviction of an accused so long as it is direct, positive, and unequivocally and clearly suggestive of the guilt of the accused person. The retraction does not render the confession inadmissible nor deter the Court from acting thereon. See GALADIMA VS THE STATE (2012) 18 NWLR (PT. 1333) 610; SOLOLA & ANOR VS THE STATE (2005) 11 NWLR (PT. 937) 460 and OGUDO VS THE STATE (Supra)." Per WAMBAI, J.C.A. (Pp. 23-24, Paras. D-A) (...read in context) 4. EVIDENCE - CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT: When is the proper time to raise an objection to the admissibility of a confessional statement "Aside from not objecting to its admissibility, no questions were asked in cross-examination regarding the non-signing of Exhibit A by the Appellant. In other words, the admissibility of the unsigned Exhibit A was not challenged or made an issue at the trial. Given to the aforestated facts and circumstances, the dictum in the case of OGUDO VS THE STATE (Supra) that "after all an unsigned document is worthless", is distinguishable and inapplicable to this case. Obviously, the facts in OGUDO's case (Supra) are not on all fours with the facts of the case at hand. In addition to the aforestated reasons, in OGUDO's case

Select target paragraph3