Post by account_disabled on Jan 17, 2024 15:02:22 GMT 8
The confession of participation in a criminal act does not immediately translate into a mitigating circumstance . The Supreme Court recalls that, to be of benefit to the convicted person, the confession must be made before the investigation begins and be decisive for its progress. In this way, the High Court has rejected an appeal filed by the legal representation of a person, convicted by the Provincial Court of Granada, to whose sentence the mitigating circumstance of confession was not applied despite the fact that he recognized the facts. The appellant and one of his neighbors got into an argument over the disturbance caused by loud music during the night. At one point, the appellant grabbed a knife and stabbed the neighbor at least twice .
The sequence was recorded by the victim's wife. The aggressor immediately went to the Civil Guard barracks , reporting that he had quarreled with a neighbor. Later, at his home, he acknowledged the facts and handed over the weapon . During the investigation, according to the appellant, he presented a document acknowledging the facts, showing his regret and apologizing to the victim. That was the sa Whatsapp Number List me position he adopted at the trial, facilitating the court's work . The man, who was accused of attempted murder, was sentenced to a three-year prison sentence for the crime of injuries with the use of a weapon. After confirming the sentence by the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia, the convicted person filed an appeal before the Supreme Court because the mitigating circumstance of confession, provided for in article 21.4 of the Penal Code, had not been appreciated. The court remembers that the case, to be taken into account, must occur before knowing.
that the judicial procedure is directed against it. The mitigating circumstance is justified, as the magistrates pointed out in STS 1177/2003, " by the usefulness that it effectively brings to Justice, saving investigation efforts and facilitating the investigation and prosecution and not on subjective reasons of rewarding a moral conduct of repentance." of the subject". Thus, jurisprudence requires that the confession be substantially truthful and attempts to prevent it from being used in a way that interests the accused , seeking better criminal treatment. Furthermore, it has declared its inadmissibility when the confession reveals evidence that has already been discovered or is about to be discovered through the course of the investigation. STS 251/2004 emphasizes that the mitigating value will only be recognized when the recognition of the facts is accompanied by “a relevant contribution that contributes decisively to the restoration of the altered legal order.”
The sequence was recorded by the victim's wife. The aggressor immediately went to the Civil Guard barracks , reporting that he had quarreled with a neighbor. Later, at his home, he acknowledged the facts and handed over the weapon . During the investigation, according to the appellant, he presented a document acknowledging the facts, showing his regret and apologizing to the victim. That was the sa Whatsapp Number List me position he adopted at the trial, facilitating the court's work . The man, who was accused of attempted murder, was sentenced to a three-year prison sentence for the crime of injuries with the use of a weapon. After confirming the sentence by the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia, the convicted person filed an appeal before the Supreme Court because the mitigating circumstance of confession, provided for in article 21.4 of the Penal Code, had not been appreciated. The court remembers that the case, to be taken into account, must occur before knowing.
that the judicial procedure is directed against it. The mitigating circumstance is justified, as the magistrates pointed out in STS 1177/2003, " by the usefulness that it effectively brings to Justice, saving investigation efforts and facilitating the investigation and prosecution and not on subjective reasons of rewarding a moral conduct of repentance." of the subject". Thus, jurisprudence requires that the confession be substantially truthful and attempts to prevent it from being used in a way that interests the accused , seeking better criminal treatment. Furthermore, it has declared its inadmissibility when the confession reveals evidence that has already been discovered or is about to be discovered through the course of the investigation. STS 251/2004 emphasizes that the mitigating value will only be recognized when the recognition of the facts is accompanied by “a relevant contribution that contributes decisively to the restoration of the altered legal order.”
