Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
ATAS/692/2006 • CJ GE ATAS/692/2006 Généré par l'IA

Admission of Remote Prior Conviction for Impeachment

Numéro de cause ATAS/692/2006
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Suisse · Canton de Genève (CH-GE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Admis (Allowed)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The appellant, having been convicted of a prior offense, appealed the trial court's decision to admit evidence of that conviction during the present trial, arguing that the conviction was too remote and its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value for impeachment purposes under the relevant evidence rule. The appellate court affirmed the decision, reasoning that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the prior conviction because the conviction was for a crime reflecting adversely on truthfulness or the propensity to testify falsely, and the trial court properly weighed the factors, including the recency of the offense and the necessity of the testimony, leading to the conclusion that the probative value outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Art. 66 al. 1 LTF; Admission of Remote Prior Conviction for Impeachment: The appellate court affirmed the decision, reasoning that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the prior conviction because the conviction was for a crime reflecting adversely on truthfulness or the propensity to testify falsely, and the trial court properly weighed the factors, including the recency of the offense and the necessity of the testimony, leading to the conclusion that the probative value outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
antécédents fausse déclaration d'une partie en justice infraction imputabilité à une personne publique présomption d'innocence force probante

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Généré par l'IA

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
Art. 66 al. 1 LTF

Applied to order the appellant to pay the court fees for the appeal.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet



               "#$%&"'(() ")*'"'(()

 +  ,-

+ ,!+ -  + -,

. / #  ' 0 '(()      1111111111    !(!         !"##$! %#&!'(&)&

2

3 + ,!+ -  +  ## 4  '(() ")$*"'(()   2 "#$%&"'(() 55

*!( ++++++++++    )'#         !"##$!  %#&!'(&)&  ,    -    *      &&(       .  /&'#! 01 23)'4544   6 

           !    :578:  

  6 7*!( ++++++++++            &;)'#5<=&5996)' # !)&&' # ''&&' !#     -     *             :  .)&:>)&/ 5?(5996@

# 1!#44;#&5996 &"#!)!(&)'## !)&&'!54A=&5?(5996='B!'&,)&'#!)&&' #!)'&!@

#!&1'&A&#$&43;#&5996@

#)'#&!#56;#&5996(!&!)'#& &"#! )!##-')'&!!@

   %#-#$ ( ! -C <D C 3 !  '& #  ')!# !(&&&= . /  A& ! ')!# ('#(  &!(& 1   ;#&!&)&' !(&&&= #= A& -'"; !-# )(&' !  !& ! 89 ;'# !>  '&A&)&' !  !)&&'@ %#  !&'&&' ! &) 29 , 25 ' '###&)"@

#)(&''#AA!-'"&E-#'&%#&!#!)&&'!(&&&= %#,''),'#=##-AA&@%#-#'&#=)&"'#='& !-$(#)(&'@%#-#)'A&('##)'&('!&A&(&> !)&&'.C29C45 /@

#  )(&' !'  -#  )=" .C 24  /@ %#-   !'(#&)'(#!A&!F%#.C<DC8 /@

#'-C64CE!'&A!#&E!#!'&!#) ')&!#6')'"5999=&E##4;=&5998. /)'# %#&'"&E&!)#!'&#("'#(!A&!&&%#! )#$!'(!&!(#A&$;#E)(1(&!(!G $(A'(#!)')#&'@

#&"#A&$!A')&'!#'("!-)&#!-#!&)!-) !-&#)&'@

#-->)!'1!#44;#&5996 &"#!)-)0 %#&'!!@

#-&;#&A&-'))#)!-'#!!,)'#@%#-->)& 'A&$,<99AC@



7428375996  :878:   

  -,8  ,!+ -  + -,



926   :  5   ;< #)' -=

  6 

4C ))(&')="C

 6

5C -!(C

8C '!( -&&( , = ,  )'#  '(( ! <99 AC , & ! &)&&',A&!C   EAA&>  &!     *&:'#&  H '&I    

)'&)'A'(!#1'&A&#$&EAA



7428375996