Viktor Bérces: Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
›
Chapter XI. Evidence in court proceedings
›
11.14. Evidence in repeated proceedings
›
11.14.1. The retrial at first instance

11.14.1. The retrial at first instance

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

If the decision of the court of second instance annuls the decision of the court of first instance and orders the court of first instance to start a new trial, new evidence must be submitted. Rules limiting the discretion of the court of first instance:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  1. The court must consider the case in the light of the reasons and grounds for the decision to annul.1 It should be noted that the prosecution and the defence must also bear in mind that it is unlikely that they will be able to convince the court of a position contrary to the guidelines of the court of appeal. However, it goes without saying that the opinions of the annulment decisions are not addressed to these procedural subjects, but to the court of first instance – consequently, these provisions do not prevent either the prosecutor or the defence from pleading new facts or making new evidentiary submissions.2
  2. If no appeal has been lodged against the defendant, the retrial cannot, as a general rule, find the acquitted defendant guilty or impose a penalty less severe than the penalty imposed in the annulled judgment or apply a measure less severe than the measure applied in lieu of a penalty. 3
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

In the case of the repetition of proceedings at first instance, the legislator also created rules aimed at simplifying and shortening procedures. The central part of the evidentiary procedure is the presentation of the previous documents. This means that the principle of the immediacy of the evidence is less applied, although I would add that this general rule is not very objectionable in this area. On this basis, in retrials

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  • there is no longer room for a preparatory meeting;4
  • if the accused does not give evidence, the single judge or the president of the chamber may also give or read out the substance of the evidence given at the hearing on which the decision to quash was based;5
  • instead of hearing the witness or the expert, the substance of the record of the witness’s testimony at the trial on which the annulled decision is based or of the expert’s opinion given at the trial may be presented or read6 (this does not preclude the presentation or reading of the substance of the testimony or opinion which does not relate to the unsubstantiated part of the facts of the case).7
1 It should be noted that in the review of a judgment rendered in a retrial, the court of second instance is not bound by the reasons and grounds set out in the decision setting aside the judgment, even if the facts remain unchanged. [§ 632 (2) –(3)]
2 However, it is futile for the defender to oppose a procedural act based on the Guidelines. In Bolgár–Kárpáti–Traytler (1962) ibid. 392.
3 Except if, for example, on the basis of new evidence in the retrial, the court establishes a new fact which requires a more severe sentence, provided that the prosecution has so requested [Art.634 (1)–(3) para].
4 § 633 (2) para.
5 § 633 (5) para.
6 This rule does not apply if the judgment of the court of first instance was set aside because the unfoundedness of the judgment could not be remedied in the proceedings at second instance [§ 633 (6)–(7)].
7 § 633 (8) para.
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