Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
VSC sklep Kp 305/99 ECLI:SI:VSCE:1999:KP.305.99 Generato dall'IA

Appeal dismissed: notarized co-defendant's statement does not constitute new evidence for retrial under ZKP 410(1)(3).

Numero d'incarto VSC sklep Kp 305/99
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Slovenia (SI)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The appellate court dismissed the convicted defendant's appeal requesting a retrial based on a notarized statement allegedly made by a co-defendant. The defendant argued this constituted new evidence under Article 410(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the court found the co-defendant was already convicted for the same forged documents. Consequently, the court ruled that such evidence does not meet the statutory threshold for reopening the proceedings.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Article 410(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act; A notarized statement by a co-defendant who has already been convicted for the same criminal act does not constitute new evidence justifying the reopening of criminal proceedings.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
Criminal Procedure Act reopening proceedings new evidence requirement co-defendant testimony notarized statement forged documents appellate review riapertura della pratica

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Article 410(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Generato dall'IA
Sodba I Ips 2907/2010-89
Appeal against conviction for concealment dismissed; applicant failed to prove legal violation or groundless factual error.
Sodba I Ips 22033/2010-27
Supreme Court dismisses appeal for protection of legality regarding new evidence in closed criminal proceedings. The court rules that evidence proposed during the trial is not new under Article 410 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The appeal is rejected because the evidence was already considered and rejected before the judgment became final. The court clarifies that such evidence does not qualify for reopening proceedings under Article 410 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The appeal is dismissed because the evidence was already considered and rejected before the judgment became final. The court clarifies that such evidence does not qualify for reopening proceedings under Article 410 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The appeal is dismissed because the evidence was already considered and rejected before the judgment became final. The court clarifies that such evidence does not qualify for reopening proceedings under Article 410 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
VSM sodba I Kp 512/2008
Appeal court acquits defendant due to reasonable doubt regarding victim's credibility and lack of physical evidence.
Sodba I Ips 62945/2010-140
Supreme Court dismisses appeal for legal protection due to vague and irrelevant procedural complaints.
VSK sodba Kp 365/93
Court partially allowed appeal reducing rape sentence to 1 year 8 months due to insufficient force used.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Pritožba obsojenega K. K. se z a v r n e kot neutemeljena.

[JEDRO]

Spremenjeni zagovor pravnomočno obsojenega soobdolženca glede udeležbe soobdolženca pri kaznivi dejavnosti, vsebovan v notarsko overjeni izjavi, ne pomeni novega dokaza po 3. tč. 1. odst. 410. čl.

ZKP.

Zato se takšna zahteva za obnovo kazenskega postopka zavrže.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Z uvodoma navedenim sklepom je sodišče prve stopnje zavrglo obsojenčevo zahtevo za obnovo kazenskega postopka, ki je bil končan s pravnomočno sodbo sodišča prve stopnje z dne 19. 2. 1997, opr. št. K 62/96-150, v zvezi s sodbo Višjega sodišča v Celju z dne 24. 2. 1998, opr. št. Kp 23/98. Obsojeni je bil spoznan za krivega nadaljevanega kaznivega dejanja prikrivanja po I. odstavku 221. člena Kazenskega zakonika, za kar je bila izrečena kazen eno leto zapora. Odvzeta mu je bila premoženjska korist v znesku 6.700,00 DEM v tolarski protivrednosti. V plačilo so mu bili naloženi stroški kazenskega postopka v znesku 77.738,00 SIT in povprečnina v znesku 200.000,00 SIT.

Zoper ta sklep se je pravočasno pritožil obsojeni po zagovorniku iz vseh pritožbenih razlogov. Predlagal je njegovo spremembo ter dovolitev obnove kazenskega postopka, sicer pa razveljavitev in vrnitev zadeve sodišču prve stopnje v novo odločitev.

Pritožba ni utemeljena.

Pritrditi je sodišču prve stopnje, da v zahtevi za obnovo zatrjevana nova dejstva in novi dokazi ne pomenijo obnovitvenega razloga po 3. točki I. odstavka 410. člena Zakona o kazenskem postopku. Vse v zahtevi imenovane priče so bile z isto sodbo kot K. K. spoznane za krive in kaznovane s pogojnimi obsodbami zaradi istih ponarejenih spričeval, ki jih je po ugotovitvah sodišča prve stopnje v takratnem kazenskem postopku pribavljal prav obsojeni K.K.. Zato takšni obsojenci v obnovitvenem postopku ne morejo biti nove priče. Enako velja zlasti za soobdolženega J.H., ki je celo overil podpis na izjavi,s katero je zanikal prvotno zatrjevano vpletenost K.K. v razpečevanje ponarejenih spričeval. Ne glede na to, da vzrok za prvotno obremenitev pritožnika ne more biti resen in zato vreden upoštevanja, na tak način pač ni mogoče doseči obnove kazenskega postopka.

Primernost izrečene kazni obsojenemu K.K. ne more biti predmet odločanja v tem pritožbenem postopku, prav tako ne vprašanje zakonitosti oziroma nezakonitosti nastopa izvrševanja kazni zapora.

Izpodbijani sklep tudi ni bil izdan z nobeno zamudo, saj ni šlo za prioritetno zadevo. V tej zadevi ni bila ugotovljena prav nobena povezava s kazensko zadevo zoper obsojenega K., ki je omenjena v pritožbi. Zato tudi ni jasno, kako naj bi omenjena zadeva vplivala na odločitev o zahtevi za obnovo kazenskega postopka.

Iz teh razlogov pritožbi ni bilo ugoditi.