Viktor Bérces: Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
›
Chapter IX. Evidence in the preparatory and investigative stages
›
9.4. Investigation I: The detection phase
›
9.4.5. Evidentiary acts in the course of detection II: the attempt to prove

9.4.5. Evidentiary acts in the course of detection II: the attempt to prove

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

An attempt at proof is an act of proof – ordered by the investigating authority, the prosecution or the court – in which the investigating authority attempts to establish (reconstruct) after the event or phenomenon has occurred, whether it could have occurred at a certain place, time, in a certain manner or under certain circumstances, by creating artificial circumstances.1 The primary aim of this procedure is therefore to ensure that the historical facts can be studied in the light of predetermined external (natural) circumstances.2

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The historical roots of the attempt to prove can be traced in a number of writings in Hungarian legal literature of the 20th century:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  • Szalay points out that it is always necessary to examine perceptibility of the moment, “experience teaches us […] that a man with healthy eyes can perceive objects at a certain distance, that a healthy ear can hear sounds with a certain power at a certain distance.”3
  • According to Szokolay, one of the methods of judicial (confession) control can be the attempt to prove even before the inspection, i.e. to establish before the inspection “whether it was possible to commit the crime in the manner indicated by the victim or the suspect.”4
  • According to Katona, the question to be answered is whether the witness could have actually seen the person or object he or she identified in the circumstances of the scene.5
  • According to Lajos Nagy, “the practical significance of the court experiment during the examination of witnesses is that the court can verify the information contained in the testimony, or the occurrence of the phenomenon or the possibilities and circumstances of the witness’s perception of the phenomenon, on the basis of concrete facts, under the same conditions, or by playing the act before the court.”6
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Based on the methodological rules in force:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  • it should preferably be conducted under the same conditions as the event or phenomenon under investigation occurred or could have occurred;7
  • a video and audio recording of the procedural act must be made, if possible.8
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

In order to facilitate the effectiveness of this measure of proof, the accused, witnesses, victims and other persons, in particular those in possession of the object of the attempted evidence, must submit to this measure of proof and make the object in their possession available to the authorities for this purpose.9

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The main features of the procedure are:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  • establishing the perceptibility of a given phenomenon after the event (e.g. whether the witness could actually have seen the crime at the time of day);
  • clarifying the possibility of carrying out an act after the event (e.g. whether the instrument in question could have caused the injury in question);
  • the possible ways in which certain events could have occurred (e.g. how the victim’s accident could have taken place);
  • retrospective assessment of the time needed for certain events to occur (e.g. how long it took the person to cover the distance);
  • learning about the individual characteristics of the people involved (e.g. strength of movement, dexterity, vision and hearing)
  • the “replay” of the act committed by the persons involved (e.g. whether the accused said he was able to open the lock with the bent wire).10
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The laboratory conditions of an evidence experiment, or the experimental nature of the experiment, can often hinder its effectiveness or negatively affect the participants. In order to reduce this, the number of participants should be kept to a minimum and, if possible, the public should be excluded.11 On the other hand, a person can be used as a substitute for the accused or a witness (double), but they should have similar physical and age characteristics. 12

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

In the selection and evaluation of the evidentiary facts that have become known during the evidentiary experiment, there are, of course, a number of errors that may occur, which may be due, among others, to the following reasons: (1) the procedural act cannot create the same or similar circumstances as those that characterised the phenomenon (event) under investigation; (2) the report of the inspection is not accurate; (3) the actors are positioned in the wrong place; (4) the members of the investigating authority lack sufficient experience in the recording of data; (5) the procedural act is not carried out with the same instrument used for the offence, but with a similar one; (6) there are significant changes in the nature of the scene due to the passage of time; (7) the clothing or vehicles of the participants are inappropriate, etc.13 The circumstances deliberately used in the experiment may therefore largely detach the event to be observed from “any incidental factors that may obscure the clarity of the evidence.”14

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

I would like to note that a significant number of cases do not require an evidentiary experiment15 at all, or its implementation is time-consuming or otherwise difficult (e.g., the reconstruction would have to be carried out in summer months, based on winter weather conditions). For this reason, some authors have suggested that it might be justified to remove the autonomy of this evidentiary act and to include it in the framework of the inspection.16 For my part, I believe, however, that this form of procedure – because of its special ability to reconstruct happenings – has specific characteristics which make it absolutely necessary to include it in the law.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Overall, the advantages of this evidence can be summarised as follows:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  • it does not necessarily require the personal involvement of the accused or the witness (see that these persons can typically be replaced by “police officers”);
  • because it can be repeated several times, it provides the opportunity for accurate, comprehensive testing (results are not random, but deliberate);17
  • it could lead to new, even more powerful evidence, if this new testimony differs from the previous testimony because of the result of the evidentiary hearing.18
1 § 209 (1) para.
2 Endre Bócz – Géza Finszter: Kriminalisztika joghallgatóknak. [Forensics for law students.] Budapest, Magyar Közlöny, 2008. 173.
3 László Szalay: A beismerésről, a tanúvallomásról és az esküdtszékről (1841). [On confession, testimony and the jury (1841)]. In: Büntető eljárásjogtudományi szemelvénygyűjtemény I. 1819–1867. [Criminal Procedure Collection I. 1819–1867.] Budapest, Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó, 1990. 101.
4 István Szokolay: Criminal law according to the latest principles of codificatio and science, especially for our judges and lawyers. Pest, 1845. 369.
5 Géza Katona (1977) ibid. 253.
6 Lajos Nagy (1966) ibid. 363.
7 § 209 (2) para.
8 § 213 (4) para.
9 § 213 (3) para.
10 Bócz–Finszter (2008) ibid. 174–175.
11 Gyula Bíró: Kriminalisztika. [Forensics]. Debrecen, Kossuth, 2004. 113.
12 Csaba Fenyvesi: A bizonyítási kísérlet és a hit. [The proof experiment and faith.] Iustum Aequum Salutare, 2017/1. 102.
13 Árpád Budaházi: Bizonyítási kísérlet a felderítésben és a bizonyításban. [Evidence in detection and proof.] In Gyula Gaál – Zoltán Hautzinger (eds.): Modernkori veszélyek rendészeti aspektusai. [Law enforcement aspects of modern-day threats.] Pécs, 2015. 131.
14 Kertész (1972) ibid. 397.
15 It is of real practical importance in the field of traffic offences. Tibor Bodor – Ákos Székely – András Vaskuti.: Büntető eljárásjog I. [Criminal procedure law I.] Budapest, Novissima, 2011. 219.
16 Budaházi (2015) ibid. 185. http://pecshor.hu/periodika/XV/budahazi.pdf
17 However, Fenyvesi says that its biggest potential for error lies in the fact that it can wrongly exclude certain individuals from the alleged perpetrators. In: Csaba Fenyvesi: Trends in forensic science. MTA Doctoral thesis, 2013, 167.
18 Remember that an evidentiary hearing is “a confrontation with reality by a person (whether an accused or a witness-victim) who has previously testified. An evidentiary experiment which is theoretically more valuable, negative, and has an excluded result, may in itself be capable of producing effects which induce a change of confession in the person involved. The person is confronted during the experiment with the fact that his or her statement is untenable and does not correspond to reality, to the evidence uncovered during the proceedings. But, I emphasise, this can work in the case of a negative, conclusive-exclusionary evidentiary experiment; in the case of a positive, possible result, such an effect cannot be expected, no confrontational tension is created, no conflict between reality and the testimony.” Fenyvesi, Criminal procedural aspects of confrontation ibid. 10.
chevron_left
chevron_right
Tartalomjegyzék navigate_next
Keresés a kiadványban navigate_next
A kereséshez, kérjük, lépj be!
Könyvjelzőim navigate_next
A könyvjelzők használatához
be kell jelentkezned.
Jegyzeteim navigate_next
Jegyzetek létrehozásához
be kell jelentkezned.
    Kiemeléseim navigate_next
    Mutasd a szövegben:
    Szűrés:
    Kiemelések létrehozásához
    MeRSZ+ előfizetés szükséges.
      Útmutató elindítása
      delete
      Kivonat
      fullscreenclose
      printsave