In a state of narcotic and alcoholic intoxication, exceeding the established limit, he hit a car
A person who has committed a criminal offense must be given a punishment that is necessary and sufficient to correct him and prevent new criminal offenses. By the verdict of the Temirtau City Court of the Karaganda region dated April 10, 2015, O. was sentenced under part 2 of Article 296 of the Criminal Code (as amended in 1997) to 1 year in prison with the deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle for 3 years, while serving his sentence in a penal colony. By the verdict of the court of O. He was found guilty of driving a Porsche Cayenne at about 9:45 a.m. on December 31, 2014, driving at a speed of 70 km/h, exceeding the established limit by 20 km/h, violating clauses 1.5, 1.6.., 2.7., 2.7.1., 10.1., 10.2. According to the Traffic Regulations of the Republic of Kazakhstan, in the area of 112/1 Mira Ave. Temirtau, a LADA 2170 car was hit, which was parked in the same direction on the right side of the carriageway. The driver of the LADA 2170 car died of his injuries. He died on the same day in the Central Hospital of Temirtau. By the decision of the appellate and cassation judicial boards of the Karaganda regional Court, the verdict of the court of first instance remained unchanged, the appeal and cassation protest of the prosecutor were left without satisfaction.
The Supervisory Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the appellate and cassation judicial boards in respect of O. The verdict of the court of first instance was changed in respect of O. and he was sentenced under part 2 of Article 296 of the Criminal Code to 3 (three) years of imprisonment with deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle for 3 years, with serving his sentence in a penal colony for the following reasons. The court's conclusions about O.'s guilt The charges of violating Traffic Rules while driving a motor vehicle, which negligently resulted in the death of I., are based on evidence examined at the court session. O.'s actions were correctly qualified by the court under part 2 of Article 296 of the Criminal Code. According to article 52 of the Criminal Code, a person who has committed a criminal offense must be given a punishment that is necessary and sufficient to correct him and prevent new criminal offenses. However, the supervisory judicial board, having studied the materials of the criminal case and assessed them in aggregate, considered that the court violated the norms of substantive law, and when imposing punishment, all the circumstances of the case characterizing O.'s personality were not fully taken into account. As can be seen from the case file, including from the testimony of eyewitnesses to the traffic accident, F. and T., shortly before the accident, a Porsche Cayenne driven by O. at a speed of about 100-120 km/h, she overtook the car they were driving. Subsequently, this car crashed into the car of victim I. parked near the curb. When F. and T., as well as other stopped drivers, pulled the victim out of the wrecked car, O. did not get out of his car until police officers arrived. Convicted O. committed a crime that entailed grave, irreversible consequences – the death of the victim. As a result of the act committed by him, the victim's parents lost their young son, born in 1986, and their young daughter, born in 2012, lost her father. In addition, the crime of O. It was committed under the influence of drugs and alcohol, which increases the public danger of the act. This fact was recognized by the court as a circumstance aggravating the criminal liability and punishment of the convicted person, but it was not given a proper legal assessment when sentencing. Further, in the materials of the criminal case, there is evidence of the systematic bringing of O. to administrative responsibility for various offenses. For 9 years, in the period from 2005 to 2013, Fr. 7 offenses related to non-compliance with Traffic Rules and 2 related to the order of stay in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan were committed. The number of offenses committed by O. testifies to his firm unwillingness to comply with the requirements of the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the persistent nature of illegal behavior. However, these circumstances were not taken into account by the judicial authorities when discussing the issue of sentencing convicted O. Considering the presence of an aggravating circumstance in the actions of the convicted person, as well as other circumstances characterizing convicted O., the supervisory judicial board considers that the sentence imposed on the convicted person by the court of first instance is excessively lenient and does not correspond to the degree of public danger and the consequences of the crime committed.
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
