Допустимость показаний в уголовном процессе: современный подход и векторы развития

Sergei A. Novikov

doi:10.21638/spbu14.2024.102

Authors

Sergei A. Novikov St. Petersburg State University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2024.102

Abstract

In the article the most relevant aspects of the admissibility of the institution of testimony in modern Russian criminal proceedings are analyzed. The main part of the study includes four sections, the first of which criticizes legal definition of the very concept of the testimony of the victim, witness, suspect and accused, as information obtained solely as a result of their interrogation. It is proposed to consider the testimony of these participants as information obtained as a result of other investigative actions, not only such as confrontation, presentation for identification or verification of testimony on the spot, but also those that were not initially aimed at obtaining testimony: search, inspection, investigative experiment. The second section examines defects in the source of the interrogated's awareness that prevent the use of information from them in evidence: testimony based on rumors, guesses or an unnamed source, violating the secrecy of confession, attorney's or tax secrecy, reproducing unacceptable information or evaluating the falsity of other people's testimony by gestures or facial expressions. The third section indicates violations of the procedure for obtaining testimony, entailing their absolute inadmissibility: the use of torture, threats, the absence of participants provided for by law (defender, teacher, psychologist), leading questions. At the same time, it is proposed to distinguish between insignificant and avoidable violations that do not entail the inadmissibility of testimony. The fourth section examines the obstacles to the use in the conduct of the trial of those testimonies that were obtained earlier without violating the legal procedure. It is proposed to waive the ban on disclosing the previous testimony of the accused, obtained without the participation of a defender (when his participation was not legally mandatory), if they were not confirmed by the accused in court, as well as to soften the rules for the disclosure of testimony of non-present persons.

Keywords:

допустимость доказательств, показания обвиняемого, показания свидетеля, следственные действия, допрос, оглашение показаний, недопустимые показания

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Библиография

Боруленков, Юрий П. 2013. «Допустимость доказательств: время перемен?» Уголовное судопроизводство 3: 13–18.

Будников, Владимир Л. 2009. Показания в уголовном судопроизводстве. М.: Юрлитинформ.

Кириллова, Наталия П. 2009. «Следственные ошибки и допустимость доказательств». КриминалистЪ 2 (5): 48–54.

Кони, Анатолий Ф. 1967. «Нравственные начала в уголовном процессе». Кони, Анатолий Ф. Собрание сочинений. В 8 т. Т. 4. М.: Юридическая литература.

Маслов, Игорь В. 2006. «Некоторые проблемы признания доказательств недопустимыми». Уголовное судопроизводство 3: 7–9.

Москалькова, Татьяна Н. 1996. Этика уголовно-процессуального доказывания (стадия предварительного расследования) . М.: Спарк.

Новиков, Сергей А. 2013. «Показания свидетеля в российском уголовном процессе: совершенствование правового регулирования». Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Право 1: 77–83.

Россинский, Сергей Б. 2013. «Проблемы соотношения результатов невербальных следственных и судебных действий с показаниями по уголовному делу». Российский следователь 16: 13–17.

Рыжаков, Александр П. 2001. Следственные действия (понятие, виды, порядок производства) . М.: Инфра-М.

Стойко, Николай Г. 2021. «Законность, обоснованность и мотивированность приговора: уголовно-процессуальный анализ на примере одного дела». Проверка законности и обоснованности судебных решений в уголовном процессе: сб. мат-лов Всерос. науч.-практ. конф., 255–267. СПб.:Астерион.

Шейфер, Семен А. 2001. Следственные действия. Система и процессуальная форма. М.: Юрлитинформ.

References

Borulenkov, Iurii P. 2013. “Admissibility of evidence: Time for change?” Ugolovnoe sudoproizvodstvo 3: 13–18. (In Russian)

Budnikov, Vladimir L. 2009. Testimony in criminal proceedings. Moscow, Iurlitinform Publ. (In Russian)

Kirillova, Natalija P. 2009. “Investigative errors and admissibility of evidence”. Kriminalist 2 (5): 48–54. (In Russian)

Koni, Anatolii F. 1967. “Moral principles in the criminal process”. Koni, Anatolii F. Sobraniie sochinenii. In 8 vols, vol. 4. Moscow, Iuridicheskaia literatura Publ. (In Russian)

Maslov, Igor’ V. 2006. “Some problems of recognizing evidence as inadmissible”. Ugolovnoe sudoproizvodstvo 3: 7–9. (In Russian)

Moskal’kova, Tat’jana N. 1996. Ethics of criminal procedural evidence (preliminary investigation stage) . Moscow, Spark Publ. (In Russian)

Novikov, Sergej A. 2013. “Witness testimony in the Russian criminal trial: Improvement of legal regulation”. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Pravo 1: 77–83. (In Russian)

Rossinskij, Sergej B. 2013. “Problems of correlation of the results of non-verbal investigative and judicial actions with testimony in a criminal case”. Rossiiskii sledovatel’ 3: 3–5. (In Russian)

Ryzhakov, Aleksandr P. 2001. Investigative actions (concept, types, procedure of production) . Moscow, Infra-M Publ. (In Russian)

Shejfer, Semen A. 2001. Investigative actions. System and procedural form. Moscow, Iurlitinform Publ. (In Russian)

Stojko, Nikolaj G. 2021. “Legality, validity and motivation of the verdict: A criminal procedural analysis on the example of one case”. Proverka zakonnosti i obosnovannosti sudebnykh reshenii v ugolovnom protsesse: sbornik materialov Vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii, 255–267. St. Petersburg, Asterion Publ. (In Russian)