1-06-8296\2 · Court dismissed appeal against conviction for theft, upholding original verdict due to lack of new evidence. (Viru Maakohus Rakvere kohtumaja)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court rejected the defendant's appeal against the first-instance conviction for theft, maintaining the original judgment. The prosecution argued that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to prove the crime, while the defense claimed procedural errors and insufficient proof. The appellate court found no merit in the appeal, ruling that the lower court's assessment of facts and evidence remained correct and binding.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Kriminaalkohtuuseaduse § 100; § 101: An appeal against a final judgment is dismissed if the appellate court finds no grounds for overturning the original decision based on the established facts and evidence.

Keywords

AI generated

criminal appeal procedure theft conviction evidence sufficiency appellate review standard final judgment enforcement

Cited Legislation

AI generated

Kriminaalkohtuuseaduse § 100

Kriminaalkohtuuseaduse § 101

Full text

! ! ! ! " # $$ " # $$ " # $$ " # $$ Määruse tegemise aeg ja koht %% & $$ " ' & (& $$ ' !")$ ' !")$ ' !")$ ' !")$

* + , - + ' . - + $ "

/ ' 0 " $!01$ ,$' 1 , )" $ ,$' 1 , )" $ ,$' 1 , )" $ ,$' 1 , )" $ $!$ $1' !$!1$ $!$ $1' !$!1$ $!$ $1' !$!1$ $!$ $1' !$!1$ $ !1 ' 1 $ !1 ' 1 $ !1 ' 1 $ !1 ' 1 ,$' 2* 3333 ,$' 1$ !1 ' 2& !! & $$ ' 12-&3333 .-&3333 ' "$!$ $ $ ! $ ! $ ! $ !2 2 2 2 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ , /) " $$ ,$' 5 , , , /) " $$ ,$' 5 , , , /) " $$ ,$' 5 , , , /) " $$ ,$' 5 , ,

0 " $, %

0 " $, % //$/ //$/ //$/ //$/ ,$' $' $" $ !1 ' $% ,$' $' $" $ !1 ' $% ,$' $' $" $ !1 ' $% ,$' $' $" $ !1 ' $% //$ 5$ $ //$ 5$ $ //$ 5$ $ //$ 5$ $

0 ) $ 1 "// $)$ !,!! $

0 ) $ 1 "// $)$ !,!! $ $$ " ' 1 $$ " ' 1 $$ " ' 1 $$ " ' 1 5/$ ' &

$ 5/$ ' &

$ ,$' $ ,$' $ ,$' $ ,$' $ "//$ "//$ "//$ "//$ / $ / $ / $ / $ "$ " $ "$ " $ "$ " $ "$ " $5/$ % 5/$ % 5/$ % 5/$ % 1$$ 1 1$$ 1 1$$ 1 1$$ 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1

%% $ $ 1 , 1$ 5 ) ,$' , *$$"$ ' 1-+ ' .-+ / ' 0 3333& $$ $ " %&! ,$'

$ 1 ' 1 ! "$ 1 $ " 0 , $ & " ! ! 1 / !1 ,$' 5$$ % 1$ 11 ' 1$ $ ! ,$' 3333& !! 6 "0 $ !$ " ! & " $ ! ! ,$' "/ !1

1$3333! !, ' $$ ! 3333% 3333 !! " ! *7!!1! !, ,$' $! $ 1" &$! $" 5/ ' $% ' 1 $ $ $ !1 # $, 1"$! " " ' ) " $

$ 1 $ % , 1! 1 ,$' ! "$ 1$ !1 ' + 5 ' $" 5 ' 1% , 1$ $ ! 1 !! " / '

0 $ 8 "0 $ $ !! " $ ,$' $& " 0$!1$!1 $ " ! *7" 3333% %% $ ,$' $ !1 ' $ 1$' .-+ $ 1

/ ' 0 " $!01$ )" $% "// "// "// "//$ $ $ 1 ' 1' 50'$!1 12 $ $ $ 1 ' 1' 50'$!1 12 $ $ $ 1 ' 1' 50'$!1 12 $ $ $ 1 ' 1' 50'$!1 12 $ )&$ ,$' $ !1 ' $ 1 1 , )" $

0 ) ,$1 , ,

0 " $& , $$ $ $0! $ 1 $ $ 1% 9 , / $ )& $ ,$'

0 ) , ' !0 $ ,

0 ! $$ "$!$ $ 05! % ! ! 1 ' $ $ $$ , "$!$ $

0 !1 $, , " $' $ ' $ / ' !1& $ !, ,$' $ 1 1 , ,

0 " $% 9 ,5 $

0 ) ,$' 5 , ,

0 " $ '/ , /) " % " 5 , 0 $ $

0 ) '/ , /)

" "1$ $ % :/ $& 0 $ $

0 ) '/ , /)

" ' & "!$)& $ , $ $ $ 1 ,$' $ 1$, 1

0 ,$$, $

0 $$"/, &" $ $ 5$ !1" 0 , $

0 ! 1 , , $ $$1 $$"/

0 " 1 % ! %% ! $ $ 1 ; $$ 1 0 , $ 1" "

1 $ !1 ' 5 & 51) ' 1 ,$' $ , ,

0 " $, $!1 $0 , $ , '/,$1$$ , " $& " 51) ' 19 ,

/ $ 1"1$ $ $

0 " $% 9 / $ )&$ '/ ) , /) " "//$, 9 , $ $ $ , /) " '/ " $ &$ , $ $ "$!$ $ !1 ' ,$'

0 ) 5<<11 , , " ' " $

1 $ " , $$"$# $ $% , /) " '/ " $ "//$ $ ! 0 , $ 1 "// $) 9 =' 9/ $ $5/$ ' "//$/ $ "$ " $ $% ! 8 8%# $$ 0 ,$2 :$"$;$$! %> )$ "//'0 %' %' %' %' % % % % :$"$;$$! %> )$

Court dismissed appeal against conviction for theft, upholding original verdict due to lack of new evidence.

Legislator summary

Legislator headnote

Keywords

Cited Legislation

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Full text