TY - JOUR

T1 - Достаточность доказательств в судебных решениях по уголовным делам: отдельные проблемы

AU - Сидорова, Наталия Александровна

AU - Васильев, Илья Александрович

PY - 2024

Y1 - 2024

N2 - The article analyzes problems of assessing evidence in criminal cases, in particular, the use by courts of such a criterion when assessing the sufficiency of evidence. In the absence of this criterion, it is impossible to talk about compliance with the requirements for the sentence and, as a consequence, about the legality of the latter. However, the law does not contain objective criteria for assessing a sufficient body of evidence to make a decision in a case. The concepts of standards of proof and standards of proof in a case developed in the doctrine of criminal procedure are currently only theoretical constructs. The article analyzes the positions of the courts of appeal, cassation and supervisory instances in assessing evidence. The categories under consideration — the totality of evidence, the limits of proof and the sufficiency of evidence — are often used in judicial decisions of courts of various instances. Judicial acts containing conclusions about evidence, the totality of which is recognized as sufficient to establish the guilt of the defendant, often indicate evidence of questionable quality, drawn up and obtained in violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, containing factual errors. The use by courts of standard formulations about the “sufficiency of the totality of evidence”, which is present in all the studied cases, and they are characterized to a greater extent by an acceptable quantitative level than a qualitative component, is probably due to the fact that in the current criminal procedural legislation there is no necessary definition of the concept of “sufficiency”. And as a result, a significant part of judicial acts contain wording that is of a standard nature, indicating the need to confirm the court’s conclusions “with the totality of evidence examined by the court”.

AB - The article analyzes problems of assessing evidence in criminal cases, in particular, the use by courts of such a criterion when assessing the sufficiency of evidence. In the absence of this criterion, it is impossible to talk about compliance with the requirements for the sentence and, as a consequence, about the legality of the latter. However, the law does not contain objective criteria for assessing a sufficient body of evidence to make a decision in a case. The concepts of standards of proof and standards of proof in a case developed in the doctrine of criminal procedure are currently only theoretical constructs. The article analyzes the positions of the courts of appeal, cassation and supervisory instances in assessing evidence. The categories under consideration — the totality of evidence, the limits of proof and the sufficiency of evidence — are often used in judicial decisions of courts of various instances. Judicial acts containing conclusions about evidence, the totality of which is recognized as sufficient to establish the guilt of the defendant, often indicate evidence of questionable quality, drawn up and obtained in violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, containing factual errors. The use by courts of standard formulations about the “sufficiency of the totality of evidence”, which is present in all the studied cases, and they are characterized to a greater extent by an acceptable quantitative level than a qualitative component, is probably due to the fact that in the current criminal procedural legislation there is no necessary definition of the concept of “sufficiency”. And as a result, a significant part of judicial acts contain wording that is of a standard nature, indicating the need to confirm the court’s conclusions “with the totality of evidence examined by the court”.

KW - достаточность доказательств, стандарты доказывания, совокупность доказательств, презумпция невиновности,

KW - body of evidence

KW - competitiveness

KW - evaluation of evidence

KW - limits of proof

KW - presumption of innocence

KW - standards of proof

KW - sufficiency of evidence

KW - validity of decisions

UR - https://lawjournal.spbu.ru/article/view/18516?articlesBySameAuthorPage=2

UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/96f51787-24e1-3aeb-a6b6-c00e10b06302/

U2 - 10.21638/spbu14.2024.313

DO - 10.21638/spbu14.2024.313

M3 - статья

VL - 15

SP - 736

EP - 748

JO - ВЕСТНИК САНКТ-ПЕТЕРБУРГСКОГО УНИВЕРСИТЕТА. ПРАВО

JF - ВЕСТНИК САНКТ-ПЕТЕРБУРГСКОГО УНИВЕРСИТЕТА. ПРАВО

SN - 2074-1243

IS - 3

ER -