Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Law and Politics
Reference:

Motion for judgment of acquittal: problems of legislative wording and practical application

Panteleeva Elena Vyacheslavovna

Postgraduate student, the department of Criminal Procedure, Saratov State Law Academy

410028, Russia, Saratovskaya oblast', g. Saratov, ul. Michurina, 85

E.Panteleeva-mail@yandex.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0706.2022.1.37334

Received:

16-01-2022


Published:

23-01-2022


Abstract: This article analyzes the legislative wording of the motion for judgment of acquittal, which from the perspective of the Russian language rules creates ambiguity for making a rehabilitating decision. This in turn, leads to the fact that the theory of criminal procedure features different interpretations of such terms as “failure of evidence” and “lack of proof” used in the Article 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation to denote the circumstances for acquittal of the defendant. Similar technical and legal inaccuracies are not only the subject of scientific discussion, but also carry practical importance, since the accurate determination of facts that comprise the grounds for the judgment of acquittal depends whether the court finds the defendant not guilty. The conclusion is made that the existing form of articulation of the grounds for the judgment of acquittal is not unified. Taking into account the Articles 299 and 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the author agrees with the need for validating “negative facts” in the course of acquittal procedure. The author forms an opinion on feasibility of omitting the term “lack of proof” in the text of the law, since by virtue of the principle of presumption of innocence, acquittal of the defendant without additional regulation is equally possible in the instance of proof of the absence of circumstances specified in law or failure to proof.


Keywords:

innocence, acquittal, grounds for acquittal, acquitting, presumption of innocence, absence, unproven, non-involvement, justice, guilt

This article is automatically translated.

The current Criminal Procedure Law provides for four grounds for the decision of acquittal, which equally entail the recognition of the defendant as innocent and his rehabilitation. The analysis of the formulations of the grounds for the acquittal of the defendant, enshrined in Part 2 of Article 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, indicates the absence of a uniform approach by the legislator to the presentation of these grounds. So, if paragraphs 2 and 3 of Part 2 of Article 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation indicate the established non-involvement of the defendant in the commission of a crime or the established absence of corpus delicti in the defendant's act, then paragraph 1 of this norm, on the contrary, refers to the "non-identification" of the crime event. In paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Article 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, defining the grounds for refusing to initiate a criminal case or its termination, the legislator speaks of "the absence of a crime event". As a result, a situation is created in which, from the point of view of the rules of the Russian language, a different resolution of the question of the evidence of a particular ground for making a rehabilitating decision is assumed.

It should be noted that the current Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation has largely adopted the tradition of formulating grounds for justification, since their first official consolidation in the Statute of Criminal Proceedings of 1864. Such a circumstance as a crime event has always been expressed through its "lack of proof" or "non-identification". For a long time, such a basis for the decision of an acquittal was formulated in a similar way as the lack of proof of the defendant's guilt, replaced today by "the defendant's non-involvement in the commission of a crime." The basis now fixed in paragraph 3 of Part 2 of Article 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, throughout the entire period of development of domestic criminal procedure legislation, was associated with the assertion that the defendant's act did not constitute a crime.

Thus, there has always been a dual approach to the semantic expression of the requirements of proof of the circumstances justifying the defendant in the Russian criminal process.

However, not only the different editorial form of the presentation of the grounds for justification in the law, but also different theoretical ideas about the need for proven absence or sufficiency of the unproven presence of an event, the corpus delicti and the defendant's involvement in it create practical problems in the process of proving the defendant's innocence.

Thus, R.M. Oganesyan believes that both the proof of the absence of a crime event and the lack of proof of its presence mean the same thing – the non-identification of the crime event [1, p. 21]. M. A. Mironova holds a similar opinion, believing that the term "non-establishment" includes both "reliable absence" and "unreliable establishment", while "absence" does not cover the concept of "unprovenness" [2, p. 63]. N. N. Sukhanova also points to the more universal nature of the concept of "non-establishment" [3, p. 18].

Some researchers tend to believe that the concept of "failure to establish the event of a crime" should be interpreted solely as proof of its absence [4, p. 14; 5]. The opposite point of view is taken by processualist scientists who believe that the synonym of the category "non-identification of the crime event" is only "unprovenness of the crime event" [6; 7, p. 125; 8, p. 377]. As noted by D. V. Tatiana, the ground formulated in this way "is characterized by ... insufficient evidence for a reliable conclusion about the existence of the act" [9, p. 85]. In addition, the opinion was expressed that, on the contrary, the term "absence" of the crime event has a comprehensive character [10].

The current Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation gives a normative definition only to such a basis for the decision of an acquittal as "non-involvement", interpreting it as "unspecified involvement or established non-involvement of a person in the commission of a crime" (paragraph 20 of Article 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). Thus, it is officially recognized that the scope of the named basis consists of two "criminal procedural conclusions with different levels of knowledge and different amounts of evidence" [11, p. 22], entailing the same decision on acquittal as a result of non-confirmation of the fact that this particular citizen committed a crime. Since the established non-involvement means "a reliable level of knowledge that a particular person did not commit the incriminated act and the amount of evidence collected is sufficient for such a conclusion" [11, p. 22], it, as a component of the above definition, does not raise questions.

The second form of non-involvement, expressed through the failure to establish the fact of the commission of the crime imputed to him by the person brought to trial, is questioned due to the fact that "it assumes a probable level of knowledge about the involvement or non-involvement of a particular person in the crime committed and the insufficient amount of evidence collected for an accurate conclusion about his guilt or innocence in the absence of the possibility to collect additional evidence" [11, p. 22]. In this regard, process scientists talk about the incorrect two-component content of the formulation of the justification grounds contained in paragraph 2 of Part 2 of Article 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation [12; 13, p. 15].

Proceeding from the rule of understanding and presentation of this ground fixed in the law, it can be assumed that the acquittal on such grounds as the absence of corpus delicti in the defendant's act (paragraph 3, Part 2 of Article 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation) is possible, both with clear evidence of this absence, and with insufficient evidence of the presence of a crime event. In accordance with this logic, it can also be assumed that the wording of paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, as determining a different degree of proof of the established fact, on the contrary, implies only insufficient confirmation of the existence of a crime event.

However, this situation seems rather strange, given that the reliable establishment of justifying circumstances unconditionally indicates the innocence of the defendant and is the unconditional reason for the decision of the acquittal. Another version of the interpretation of the concept of "non-establishment" used in paragraph 1, Part 2 of Article 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as admitting both positive and negative fact, due to the absence of a normative explanation of the content of the justification grounds set out in paragraph 3, part 2 of Article 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, determines that the absence of corpus delicti can be stated only in the case of reliable confirmation the fact that there are no signs of a crime in the act committed by the defendant.

At first glance, such legal and technical inaccuracies are the subject of only scientific discussion and do not have sufficient practical significance. Nevertheless, the correct determination of the factual data forming the basis for the acquittal depends on whether the court will decide to find the defendant innocent. The court should clearly understand in which case it can state the existence of grounds for an acquittal: only if there is a sufficient body of evidence confirming the absence of an event, the corpus delicti, the non-involvement of the person being prosecuted in it, or it can limit itself to the lack of proof of the charge. Even a small uncertainty in the criteria for making a decision on acquittal can affect the fate of a particular person subjected to criminal prosecution.

It seems that the solution to this problem is connected with the requirements imposed on the truth of the acquittal as the final decision of the court. If, by virtue of Part 4 of Article 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the confession of the accused cannot be based on assumptions, then the conclusion of his innocence can be made already in connection with the non-confirmation of the prosecution version. By virtue of the principle of presumption of innocence, if the wrongfulness of an act or its commission by a specific person is not established and proven in the relevant criminal procedural procedures, all doubts should be interpreted in favor of this person, who - with regard to the issue of criminal responsibility – is considered innocent [14].

Thus, in accordance with the legal consequence arising from the principle of presumption of innocence that unproven guilt is equivalent to proven innocence, an acquittal should be issued "in cases where the court does not have positive knowledge about the picture of the criminal event that occurred and the role of the defendant in it" [15]. Consequently, the actual basis for making an acquittal decision can be both reliable knowledge that the defendant is innocent of committing a crime, and the lack of proof of the prosecution's version of his guilt in a criminally punishable act, which arose either as a result of objective reasons related to the limited means, methods of criminal procedural knowledge, or with a poorly conducted preliminary investigation.

The peculiarity of justification is that, in general, it is associated with the establishment of so-called "negative facts" [16, p. 212]. Proving what did not exist in objective reality often turns out to be quite difficult. It is no coincidence that, due to the complexity of the argument, innocence, which is a collective concept relative to the grounds of justification presented in the law, is not included in the list of circumstances of the subject of proof (Article 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). For this reason, as a rule, the descriptive and motivational part of the acquittal is based on the refutation of the evidence presented by the state prosecution.

So, K. was accused of being the acting head of the correctional colony, in March 2017 he signed a state contract based on an uncompetitive method of renting premises with an organization to attract convicts to work on the production of canned vegetables. At the same time, he did not coordinate this transaction with the concerned departments of the correctional institution, including the legal service, with the Department of the Federal Penitentiary Service for the Belgorod region. In addition, the provisions of the contract provided for the extension to the relations that arose before its conclusion, began to operate from January 2017. Thus, according to the prosecution, K. allowed inefficient use of budget funds in the amount of 1,970,700 rubles. In the verdict, the court indicated that the fact of the defendant's conclusion of a state contract with a legal entity in March 2017, based on the accusation, does not consist in a causal relationship with the harmful consequences that have occurred and does not form a crime in his actions, provided for in Part 1.1 of Article 293 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; the job description of the head of the correctional institution does not contain information about familiarization the fact of the lack of coordination with the Department of the Federal Penitentiary Service for the Belgorod region is actually refuted by the content of telephone conversations with the head of the specified body, direct participation in the acceptance of the first batch of canned vegetables by the deputy of the latter; the actual fulfillment of the terms of the contract since February 2017 prevented K. from refusing to sign it (conclusion), since it could lead to to the disruption of the execution of 12 government contracts related to the supply of canned food, and the onset of other harmful consequences. Taking into account these circumstances, on September 18, 2020, the district court acquitted K. on the charge of committing a crime under Part 1.1 of Article 293 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, on the basis of paragraph 3 of Part 2 of Article 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, since there was no corpus delicti in the defendant's act [17].

  The analysis of the provisions of Articles 299, 339 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation allows us to conclude that it is a negative answer to whether it is proved that the act took place, that the defendant committed this act, whether the defendant is guilty of committing this act, is the basis for the acquittal verdict, the decision of the acquittal. Thus, in addition to the fact that the justification is connected with those facts that were absent in reality, it, by virtue of the questions asked during the adoption of the final act on the case, always indicates a negative resolution of the evidence of the circumstances that should be established to confirm the charge.  In this regard, the position of I.S. Dikarev seems fair that "even when the defense side manages to positively prove the defendant's non-involvement in the commission of a crime or the absence of a crime event at all, it is the lack of proof of the accusation that still acts as the basis for justification" [15].

Based on the above, it seems appropriate to abandon the use of the term "non-establishment" in the text of the law, since, by virtue of the principle of presumption of innocence, which applies to all stages of criminal proceedings, to all types of criminal procedural activities, the acquittal of the defendant without additional regulation is equally possible, both if the absence of the previously mentioned circumstances is proved, and if their presence is not proven. In order to eliminate legal uncertainty, paragraph 20 should be deleted from the text of Article 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. In addition, in view of the need for uniform application of the law, it seems correct to bring the norms of paragraph 1, part 1, Article 24 and paragraph 1, Part 2, Article 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation into compliance, with the predominant use of the term "absence" of the crime event.

References
1. Oganesyan R. M. Opravdatel'nyi prigovor v sovetskom ugolovnom protsesse: avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. M., 1970. 31 s.
2. Mironova M. A. Neustanovlenie sobytiya prestupleniya kak osnovanie opravdaniya – analiz ponyatiya // Sovremennaya nauka: aktual'nye voprosy teorii i praktiki. Seriya: Ekonomika i Pravo. 2017. ¹. 6. S. 62 – 64.
3. Sukhanova N. N. Postanovlenie opravdatel'nogo prigovora v rossiiskom ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve: avtoref. dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk. Irkutsk, 2008. 24 s.
4. Aleksandrova O. Yu. Opravdatel'nyi prigovor v ugolovnom protsesse: teoreticheskie osnovy i pravoprimenitel'naya praktika: avtoref. dis. …kand. yurid. nauk. Omsk, 2005. 23 s.
5. Libus I. A. Prezumptsiya nevinovnosti i prekrashcheniya ugolovnykh del // Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo. 1981. ¹ 7. S. 62 – 70.
6. Panokin A. M. Neustanovlennye obstoyatel'stva soversheniya prestupleniya: problemy dokazyvaniya // Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava. 2015. ¹ 11. S. 90 – 94. Dostup iz Sprav. pravovoi sistemy «Konsul'tantPlyus» (data obrashcheniya: 06.10.2021).
7. Sinitsyn A. A. Otsenka dostatochnosti dokazatel'stv sudom pri postanovlenii opravdatel'nogo prigovora vvidu ne ustanovleniya sobytiya prestupleniya // Zakon i pravo. 2019. ¹ 12. S. 124 – 127.
8. Fatkullin F. N. Obvinenie i sudebnyi prigovor. Kazan': Izd-vo Kazananskogo universiteta, 1965. 531 s.
9. Tat'yanin D. V. Reabilitatsiya v ugolovnom protsesse Rossii: ponyatie, vidy, osnovaniya, protsessual'nyi poryadok: dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk. Izhevsk, 2005. 264 s.
10. Artamonov A. N. Prekrashchenie ugolovnogo dela (ugolovnogo presledovaniya) v svyazi s otsutstviem sobytiya prestupleniya, otsutstviem v deyanii sostava prestupleniya, neprichastnost'yu podozrevaemogo ili obvinyaemogo k soversheniyu prestupleniya // Zakonodatel'stvo i praktika. 2015. ¹ 1. S. 71 – 78. Dostup iz Sprav. pravovoi sistemy «Konsul'tantPlyus» (data obrashcheniya: 05.10.2021).
11. Lifanova L. G. Prekrashchenie ugolovnogo presledovaniya za neprichastnost'yu podozrevaemogo ili obvinyaemogo k soversheniyu prestupleniya: avtoref. dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk. M., 2005. 26 s.
12. Fil'chenko A. P. Neprichastnost' podozrevaemogo ili obvinyaemogo k soversheniyu prestupleniya v mekhanizme prekrashcheniya otnosheniya ugolovnoi otvetstvennosti // Rossiiskii sledovatel'. 2012. ¹ 14. S. 19 – 22. Dostup iz Sprav. pravovoi sistemy «Konsul'tantPlyus» (data obrashcheniya: 02.06.2021).
13. Churilov Yu. Yu. Opravdatel'nyi prigovor v rossiiskom sudoproizvodstve: avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. Voronezh, 2009. 24 s.
14. Postanovlenie Konstitutsionnogo Suda RF ot 14 iyulya 2011 g. ¹ 16-P «Po delu o proverke konstitutsionnosti polozhenii punkta 4 chasti pervoi stat'i 24 i punkta 1 stat'i 254 Ugolovno-protsessual'nogo kodeksa Rossiiskoi Federatsii v svyazi s zhalobami grazhdan S.I. Aleksandrina i Yu.F. Vashchenko» // SZ RF. 2011. ¹ 30 (2). St. 4698.
15. Dikarev I. S. Istinnost' opravdatel'nogo prigovora // Rossiiskaya yustitsiya. 2018. ¹ 11. S. 23 – 24. Dostup iz Sprav. pravovoi sistemy «Konsul'tantPlyus» (data obrashcheniya: 22.11.2021).
16. Kudryavtseva A. V. Dokazatel'stvennaya deyatel'nost' suda pervoi instantsii po ugolovnym delam / A. V. Kudryavtseva, V. L. Syskov. M.: Yurlitinform, 2007. 250 s.
17. Prigovor Alekseevskogo raionnogo suda Belgorodskoi oblasti ot 18 sentyabrya 2020 g. po delu ¹ 1-33/2020 // Alekseevskii raionnyi sud Belgorodskoi oblasti: [sait]. URL: http://alekseevsky.blg.sudrf.ru/ (data obrashcheniya: 15.12.2021)

Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the study is public relations in the field of legislative formulation and practice of applying the grounds for making court decisions regarding acquittal. The research methodology is based on theoretical analysis and research of practical aspects of the subject matter. The author uses methods of analysis and synthesis, deduction, induction. General legal methods prevail in the presented study. The relevance is due to the need to improve the legislation of the Russian Federation in terms of the grounds for sentencing. The scientific novelty consists in a combination of the author's approaches and proposals for improving legislation presented in the text of the article. The style is of the author's descriptive nature, where the normative legal acts and provisions governing the subject of the study are consistently analyzed. The structure is logical in nature. The author's conclusions are presented consistently. The author's conclusions are present. The content includes an analysis of the grounds for the decision of acquittal, which equally entail the recognition of the defendant as innocent and his rehabilitation. The author's conclusions are of interest in terms of the lack of a uniform approach by the legislator to the presentation of these grounds. So, if paragraphs 2 and 3 of Part 2 of Article 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation indicate the established non-involvement of the defendant in the commission of a crime or the established absence of corpus delicti in the defendant's act, then paragraph 1 of this norm, on the contrary, refers to the "non-identification" of the crime event. The author reasonably believes that the different editorial form of the presentation of the grounds for justification in the law, but also different theoretical ideas about the need for proven absence or sufficiency of the unproven presence of an event, the corpus delicti and the defendant's involvement in it create practical problems in the process of proving the defendant's innocence. The author's argument is supported by the positions of leading scientists, in particular Oganesyan R.M., Mironova M.A., Sukhanova N.N., Mironova O.Yu. and other researchers. The author's analysis of the provisions of Articles 299, 339 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is also of interest. It allows the author to conclude that it is the negative answer to whether it is proved that the act took place, that the defendant committed this act, whether the defendant is guilty of committing this act, that serves as the basis for an acquittal verdict, an acquittal ruling. Thus, in addition to the fact that the justification is related to those facts that were absent in reality, it, by virtue of the questions asked during the adoption of the final act on the case, always indicates a negative resolution of the evidence of the circumstances that should be established to confirm the charge. The interest of the readership may also be represented by the author's vision to abandon the use of the term "non-identification" in the text of the law, since, by virtue of the principle of presumption of innocence, which applies to all stages of criminal proceedings, to all types of criminal procedural activities, the acquittal of the defendant without additional regulation is equally possible, as if the absence of the previously mentioned circumstances is proved, so it is with the lack of evidence of their presence. The author gives specific suggestions for improving the legislation. The disadvantage of the presented article is the bibliography, namely the prescription of the sources used in the analysis. It is worth agreeing that in the practical part, the author analyzed only one verdict of the district Court of the Belgorod region, and it is dated 2020. The list of references contains only one publication in 2019 and one in 2018. Other sources were published earlier. At the same time, judicial practice is developing more rapidly. Research papers are being updated. It seems advisable to update the sources used in this study and analyze the theoretical arguments of scientists and the practical activities of courts in 2020 - 2021. After updating the source database, the article can be recommended for publication.