He was found guilty of premeditated murder on the basis of hostile relations, out of hooligan motives, being a person who had previously committed murder, and of repeatedly committing secret theft of other people's property, with illegal entry into the home.
The court, having correctly established the convict's guilt in the murder of two persons and the commission of several thefts, at the same time incorrectly and excessively qualified his actions under part one of Article 96 and part one of Article 175 of the Criminal Code. By the verdict of the Almaty City Court dated March 15, 2002: A., was sentenced under part one of Article 96 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code) to 14 years in prison, under paragraphs "I, h" of part two of Article 96 of the Criminal Code – to 17 years in prison, under part one of Article 175 of the Criminal Code – to 2 years of imprisonment, according to paragraphs "b, c" of the second part of Article 175 of the Criminal Code – to 4 years of imprisonment, on the basis of the fourth part of Article 58 of the Criminal Code for a combination of crimes – to 21 years of imprisonment with serving a sentence in a high-security penal colony. It was decided to collect 27,000 tenge in favor of victim S., 65,850 tenge for victim B., and 14,000 tenge for state revenue. The verdict was upheld by the decision of the Board of Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated May 7, 2002. The court found A. guilty of premeditated murder of S. on the basis of hostile relations, premeditated murder for hooligan motives of G., being a person who had previously committed the murder, and of repeatedly committing secret theft of other people's property, with illegal entry into the home.
Having examined the materials of the criminal case at the request of the convicted person, the Supervisory Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan changed the judicial acts issued in the case on the following grounds. The court's conclusions about A.'s guilt in the murders of S. and G., as well as in committing several thefts of other people's property under the circumstances specified in the verdict, are based on the case materials. At the same time, A.'s arguments that the court's qualification of his actions additionally under part one of Article 96 and part one of Article 175 of the Criminal Code is incorrect and unnecessary. Thus, in accordance with the requirements of part five of Article 11 of the Criminal Code, in cases where the repetition of crimes is provided for by the Criminal Code as a circumstance entailing a more severe punishment, crimes committed by a person are qualified under the relevant part of the article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code, which provides for punishment for repeated crimes. This provision of the criminal law was in force at the time of sentencing against A. In order to correctly apply this provision of the criminal law, paragraph 3 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 25, 2006 No. 11, as amended by the normative resolution "On the qualification of repetition and totality of crimes" dated April 21, 2011 No. 1 established that if the repetition in the criminal law norm is specified as qualifying The commission of several identical crimes by the same person is subject to qualification in general according to the relevant article (part of the article) of the Criminal Code., providing for liability for the repeated commission of this crime. In such circumstances, the actions of A., who committed the murder of one and then another person, and repeated theft of other people's property are fully covered by paragraphs "i, h" of the second part of Article 96 and paragraphs "b, c" of the second part of Article 175 of the Criminal Code, under which he was convicted, and additional qualifications under the first part of Article 96 and The first part of Article 175 of the Criminal Code is not required. In this regard, the first part of Article 96 and the first part of Article 175 of the Criminal Code should be excluded from the charges against A. as unnecessarily imputed. When assigning a measure of punishment to a convicted person, the court of supervisory instance takes into account the nature and degree of public danger of the act committed by him and all other circumstances of the case.
Since the court of first instance applied the principle of partial addition of punishment when imposing punishment on A. for a set of crimes, this principle should also be applied when determining punishment for him for a set of crimes provided for in paragraphs "i, h" of the second part of Article 96 and paragraphs "b, c" of the second part of Article 175 of the Criminal Code. Based on the above, guided by articles 459, 467 and 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the supervisory Judicial board of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan amended the judicial acts issued in the case against A. The first part of Article 96 and the first part of Article 175 of the Criminal Code were excluded from the charges against A. as unnecessarily imputed. It was decided to consider A. convicted under paragraphs "i, h" of the second part of Article 96 to 17 years in prison and paragraphs "b, c" of the second part of Article 175 of the Criminal Code to 4 years in prison. On the basis of the fourth part of Article 58 of the Criminal Code, by partially adding up the punishment for the totality of crimes, A.'s punishment was finally imposed – 20 years in prison. The rest of the judicial acts against A. were left unchanged.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
