Legality and validity of the conviction
The guilty verdict was decided on the basis of a comprehensive and objective study of the evidence presented to the court, in compliance with all requirements of the law and on the basis of the law, is a lawful and justified Verdict of the specialized interdistrict Criminal Court of Almaty dated February 9, 2021: P., previously, on October 29, 2003, convicted on counts "a, z", part 2 of Article 96, paragraph "d" of part 2 of Article 179, part 1 of Article 251 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter – CC) to 25 years in prison, released on April 24, 2020 on parole for an unserved term of 8 years and 1 month, was sentenced under paragraph 10) of part 2 of Article 99 of the Criminal Code to life imprisonment, paragraph 2) of part 2 of Article 120 of the Criminal Code to 10 years in prison, part 1 of Article 126 of the Criminal Code 2 years of imprisonment, on the basis of part 4 of Article 58 of the Criminal Code to life imprisonment, on the basis of parts 1, 4 of Article 60 of the Criminal Code, according to the totality of sentences, finally to life imprisonment while serving the sentence in an institution of the penitentiary system of emergency security. The term of punishment is calculated from May 17, 2020. Dangerous recidivism of crimes was recognized in the actions in accordance with paragraph 2) part 2 of Article 14 of the Criminal Code. s p. compensation for moral damage was collected in favor of M. in the amount of 500,000 tenge, N. – 10,000,000 tenge, state duty in the amount of 2,917 tenge, procedural costs in the amount of 1,126,109 tenge, compulsory payment in the amount of 83,340 tenge to the Compensation Fund for Victims. The fate of the physical evidence has been resolved. By the verdict of the court P. He was found guilty of murder in order to conceal another crime, rape combined with the threat of murder, and unlawful imprisonment. By the decision of the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Almaty City Court dated March 10, 2021, the verdict of the court remained unchanged. In the petition, convicted P. requests that part 2 of Article 120 and part 1 of Article 126 of the Criminal Code be excluded from the conviction, and that his actions be reclassified to manslaughter with a sentence of 25 years in prison.
Legality and validity of the conviction
He provides the following arguments in support. M. has been diagnosed with a mental disorder. The latter gave contradictory testimony. The witnesses did not witness the incident and testified according to M. The case does not include details of calls from his phone. The murder was manslaughter, motivated by a domestic quarrel. M. was not prevented from leaving the house. The accusation of rape is unfounded, as he suffers from impotence. A full-fledged inpatient psychiatric examination has not been conducted in his regard. He suffers from a mental illness – a split personality. The guilt of P. The commission of a crime is confirmed by a set of reliable evidence, which has been given a proper legal assessment by the courts of first and appellate instances. The victim M., during the investigation and trial, gave stable testimony about the circumstances of P.'s crimes. She testified that she saw P., who lived in the same apartment with her, washing an axe. On the floor and on the bed were R. and S. with bleeding wounds. P., threatening to kill her, raped her and kept her in the house. When the metal buyers arrived in the evening and talked to P., she ran out of the house and asked for help from the neighbors. The testimony of M. They were confirmed by witness statements: S., H., U., K., to whom M. had asked for help. At the same time, M. immediately reported not only the murder of two persons committed by P., but also the rape. A molecular genetic examination established the presence of P.'s DNA on M.'s underwear. M.'s testimony regarding the murders of P. R. and S. is consistent with the conclusions of forensic medical examinations, according to which the cause of death in the first case was brain destruction as a result of an open traumatic brain injury, in the second - a closed traumatic brain injury. Injuries are caused by exposure to a hard blunt object. A forensic biological examination showed the presence of traces of blood on P.'s jeans and shirt, the origin of which is not excluded from R. and S. A forensic psychiatric examination was conducted with respect to M., who had disability group 2, and it was determined that she could correctly perceive the circumstances relevant to the case and give evidence about them. In the cassation petition, P. himself does not deny the fact of causing bodily harm to the victims. Thus, the testimony of M. They are fully consistent with other evidence, and the victim's ability to give objective testimony has been confirmed by experts.
In this regard, the testimony was correctly recognized by the court as reliable and formed the basis of the verdict. The multiplicity of bodily injuries and the multiplicity of traumatic effects indicated by the experts indicate P.'s intent to take the lives of R. and S. and refute the arguments about the necessary defense. The totality of the evidence collected is sufficient to conclude that P. is guilty of committing crimes. There are no grounds for requesting details of calls from P.'s phone in this regard. P.'s arguments about his mental disorder have been verified by the court. According to the results of the inpatient forensic psychiatric examination, P. was declared sane and did not require compulsory medical measures. Thus, P.'s guilt in committing crimes has been fully proven. His actions are qualified correctly. According to part 3 of Article 52 of the Criminal Code, when sentencing, the nature and degree of public danger of a criminal offense, the identity of the perpetrator, including his behavior before and after the commission of the offense, circumstances mitigating and aggravating responsibility and punishment, as well as the impact of the imposed punishment on the correction of the convicted person and on the living conditions of his family or persons in custody are taken into account. his dependents. No mitigating circumstances have been established in the case. The Court correctly noted that P. We were previously convicted of a particularly serious crime against human life, which is the main constitutional right of everyone. P. did not draw conclusions for himself, and again committed a similar particularly serious crime. Consequently, the punishment of the previous sentence in the form of a long term of imprisonment did not have the proper effect, and only the punishment in the form of life imprisonment is sufficient and fair. The Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court left the judicial acts of the local courts in respect of P. unchanged, and the convicted person's petition was not satisfied.
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
