Legality and validity of the verdict

By the verdict of the specialized interdistrict criminal court of the Akmola region dated June 11, 2014, decided with the participation of jurors, M., who had no previous criminal record: - sentenced under part 1 of Article 252 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code) to 2 years in prison; under part 2 of Article 251 of the Criminal Code to 4 years in prison; under paragraph "w, h" of part 2 of Article 96 of the Criminal Code to 17 years in prison with confiscation of all property belonging to him; under paragraph "b" of part 4 of Article 179 of the Criminal Code to 10 years of imprisonment with confiscation of all property belonging to him; under paragraph "a" of part 2 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code to 3 years in prison. On the basis of parts 1, 4 of Article 58 of the Criminal Code, 23 years of imprisonment were finally imposed on the totality of crimes by partial addition of punishments to serve his sentence in a high-security penal colony. I., who had no previous convictions, was sentenced to 3 years in prison under part 2 of Article 251 of the Criminal Code; under paragraph "g, h" of part 2 of Article 96 of the Criminal Code to 15 years of imprisonment with confiscation of all property belonging to him; under paragraph "b" of part 4 of Article 179 of the Criminal Code to 10 years of imprisonment; under paragraph "a" of part 2 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code to 3 years in prison. On the basis of parts 1, 4 of Article 58 of the Criminal Code, 20 years of imprisonment with confiscation of all property belonging to him, with serving the sentence in a high-security penal colony, was finally imposed for the aggregate of crimes by partial addition of the imposed punishments. The term of serving the sentence was calculated by M. from November 27, 2013, and I. from November 26, 2013. Collected in favor of U. for compensation of moral damage: from M. 5,000,000 tenge, from I. - 3,000,000 tenge, to the state's income – a state fee of 926 tenge from each, procedural costs from M. – 80,000 tenge, from I. – 58,062 tenge. Based on the verdict of the jury, M. and I. were found guilty by the court of murder, that is, unlawful intentional infliction of death on the victim U., involving robbery committed by a group of persons by prior agreement; robbery, that is, an attack with the aim of stealing someone else's property on an especially large scale, combined with violence dangerous to the life and health of the victim U., with the use of weapons; illegal possession of a vehicle without the purpose of theft (theft); illegal possession and carrying of firearms, as well as M. – illegal manufacture of firearms. This verdict also convicted T., in respect of whom the petition was not received. By the decision of the Appellate Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Akmola Regional Court dated July 23, 2014, the verdict against M. and I. remained unchanged. By the decision of the cassation judicial board of the Akmola Regional Court dated October 21, 2014, the verdict and the decision of the appellate instance against I. were also left unchanged.

Legality and validity of the verdict

In the petitions: - the convicted M., without disputing the evidence of guilt and the criminal qualification of his actions, indicates that the court, noting in the verdict that he was positively characterized at his place of residence, did not recognize this circumstance as mitigating, thus violating the requirements of article 53 of the Criminal Code. Requests, by applying the rules of part 2 of Article 55 of the Criminal Code, to reduce the sentence imposed under part 2 of Article 96 of the Criminal Code to 15 years, under part 2 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code to 2 years 6 months and, taking this into account, to reduce the total sentence; - convict I. Expresses its disagreement with the judicial acts that have taken place in connection with the inconsistency of the court's conclusions set out in the verdict with the factual circumstances of the case. Indicates that there was no intent to kill. he did not have one, he did not take part in taking the victim's life, but only out of fear assisted M. in loading the corpse and transporting his car. He believes that there is an excess of the perpetrator of the crime in M.'s actions. He asks the judicial acts to be changed and to make a fair decision. According to article 665 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), judicial acts with the participation of jurors are reviewed in cassation on the grounds provided for in paragraph 1 of Part 1 and part 2 of Article 485 of the CPC, or due to improper application of the norms of the General and Special Parts of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan when sentencing. These grounds are exhaustive. There were no violations of the above-mentioned norms in the case, and the petitions provided for by law did not provide grounds for reviewing the verdict based on the verdict of the jury. The court's conclusions on the evidence of M. and I.'s guilt in committing the criminal acts for which they were convicted, under the circumstances set out in the verdict, are based on the evidence examined with the participation of jurors. The arguments given in the petition by convict I. The absence of evidence indicating his involvement in the murder of victim U. was the subject of investigation by the courts of the first, appellate and cassation instances. The criminal case was considered by the legal composition of the jury, which was formed in compliance with the requirements of the Criminal procedure law. The jury found it proven that M. was in a group of persons in prior agreement with I. Under the circumstances specified in the verdict, they committed: premeditated murder of victim U., accompanied by robbery (robbery, that is, an attack with the aim of stealing other people's property on an especially large scale, using violence dangerous to life and health of U.), using weapons; unlawfully took possession of victim U.'s vehicle. without the purpose of theft, and also illegally stored and carried firearms; M. also illegally manufactured firearms. The guilty verdict of the jury complies with the requirements of the law and is based on a comprehensive study of the case materials. There was no violation of the principle of adversarial proceedings at the court session, and no unjustified refusals to examine evidence that could be essential to the outcome of the case were established. All the evidence was examined for its reliability, admissibility and relevance to the case under consideration in the presence of the jury. There is no data on the investigation of inadmissible evidence in court. When asking questions before the jury, the requirements of articles 653,654 of the CPC were met.

Legality and validity of the verdict

The jurors, having examined the evidence presented at the court session, discussed in the conference room the issues to be resolved in relation to the committed act on issues of evidence and guilt, decided to convict the convicts. According to the results of the vote, which positively resolved the issue of the evidence of the commission of M. and I. the court issued a guilty verdict with the qualification of their actions under part 2 of Article 251, under paragraphs "g, h" of part 2 of Article 96, under paragraph "b" of part 4 of Article 179, under paragraph "a" of part 2 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code, and M., in addition, under part 1 Articles 252 of the Criminal Code. There are no grounds for changing the legal qualification of convicted persons' actions.

The punishment was imposed on the convicts in accordance with the requirements of Article 52 of the Criminal Code, taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the committed acts, their personality. When sentencing, the court indicated all the circumstances that should have been taken into account when sentencing. The circumstances cited by convicted M. in the petition are not included in the list of mitigating circumstances provided for in part 1 of Article 53 of the Criminal Code. According to part 2 of Article 53 of the Criminal Code, it is the court's right, not its duty, not to recognize them as mitigating. In accordance with part 3 of Article 52 of the Criminal Code, mitigating and aggravating circumstances and punishment are taken into account when sentencing, along with other information about the identity and behavior of the perpetrator. The positive characterization of M. and the absence of a previous criminal record by the court when sentencing were taken into account as data characterizing the personality of the convicted person, but the court found no grounds for recognizing these circumstances as mitigating. Based on the above, the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the judicial acts of local courts in relation to M. and I left it unchanged. The petitions of the convicts M. and I. were left without satisfaction. 

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