When establishing indirect intent to murder, the qualification of a crime as attempted murder is unacceptable.
By the verdict of the specialized interdistrict criminal Court of the Almaty region dated November 15, 2011, B. was sentenced under part 1 of Article 96 of the Criminal Code to 9 years in prison, under part 3 of Article 24 of the Criminal Code, paragraph "a" of part 2 of Article 96 of the Criminal Code to 11 years in prison, on the basis of part 4 of Article 58 of the Criminal Code to 12 years of imprisonment in a high-security penal colony. The verdict was upheld by the decisions of the appellate instance of January 31, 2012 and the cassation board of the Almaty Regional Court of October 04, 2012. By the verdict of court B. He was found guilty of being intoxicated and driving with his wife V. to the house of S. (the wife's sister). Entering her house, the convict saw S. and O., D. and K., previously unknown to him, drinking alcoholic beverages. He asked them to leave S.'s house, and on this basis, an argument broke out between them, during which O. hit B. in the face, causing him to fall to the ground. After that, O., D. and K. went outside and started moving along the side of the road. At that time, B. followed them in his car, where he ran over O., D. and K. walking along the side of the road. As a result, the victim D. minor bodily injuries were inflicted, and O. suffered serious bodily injuries, from which he died on the spot. Victim K. managed to dodge a moving car driven by B. Thus, B. was found guilty of committing the murder of victim O. and of attempted murder of victims K. and D. In the petition, convicted B., disagreeing with the judicial acts issued in the case, indicated that the criminal case had been considered with an accusatory bias, and his guilt had not been proven by the preliminary investigation and the court.
He asks to investigate the criminal case. The Supervisory Judicial Board of the Supreme Court changed the verdict of the specialized interdistrict Criminal Court of the Almaty region, the decisions of the appellate and cassation judicial boards of the Almaty Regional Court in respect of B., stating the following. The guilt of convicted B. in deliberately hitting the victims was established by the evidence collected in the case and comprehensively verified during the trial. The verdict of the court regarding the conviction of B. for the murder of O. According to part 1 of Article 96 of the Criminal Code, it is based on the materials of the criminal case and is correct. At the same time, the court's qualification of B.'s actions under part 3 of Article 24 of the Criminal Code, paragraph "a" of part 2 of Article 96 of the Criminal Code as attempted murder of victims D. and K. is not based on the conclusions of the court and the law. According to part 3 of Article 24 of the Criminal Code, an attempted crime is an act (inaction) committed with direct intent, directly aimed at committing a crime, if the crime is not completed due to circumstances beyond the control of the person. In accordance with part 2 of Article 20 of the Criminal Code, a crime is recognized as committed with direct intent if the person was aware of the social danger of his actions (inaction), foresaw the possibility or inevitability of socially dangerous consequences and desired their occurrence. Part 3 of Article 20 of the Criminal Code establishes that a crime is recognized as committed with indirect intent if a person was aware of the social danger of his actions (inaction), foresaw the possibility of socially dangerous consequences, did not want, but deliberately allowed these consequences to occur or was indifferent to them. The court of first instance, in the introductory and motivational part of the verdict, established that B., realizing the illegality of his actions, foresaw that hitting O. with a car on the road, D. and K., can lead to their death and deliberately, allowing such an outcome, treating such a consequence of his actions indifferently, deliberately committed a hit-and-run. Thus, the court of first instance recognized that the deliberate actions of the convicted against the victims were committed with indirect intent. In such circumstances, if the court recognizes indirect intent in B.'s actions, his conviction under part 3 of Article 24 of the Criminal Code, paragraph "a" of part 2 of Article 96 of the Criminal Code is not based on the law.
According to the criminal law, when a person commits an intentional crime with indirect intent, he is responsible for the immediate harm that has occurred. Since the current criminal law does not provide for liability for causing minor harm to health, there is no corpus delicti in B.'s actions against the victims D. and K. Considering the above, the supervisory judicial board of the Supreme Court issued a verdict regarding the conviction of B. according to part 3 of Article 24, paragraph "a" of part 2 of Article 96 of the Criminal Code was canceled, the case in this part was discontinued due to the absence of corpus delicti in the actions of the convicted person. The use of part 4 of Article 58 of the Criminal Code in sentencing a convicted person was abolished. The rest of the verdict and other judicial acts in this case remained unchanged. The petition of the convict was partially satisfied. Consider B. convicted under part 1 of Article 96 of the Criminal Code to 9 (nine) years of imprisonment while serving his sentence in a high-security penal colony.
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
