Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
91.2012.89 • PP TI 91.2012.89 Generato dall'IA

State v. Defendant (Traffic Violation Acquittal)

Numero d'incarto 91.2012.89
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Svizzera · Cantone Ticino (CH-TI)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Accolto (Allowed)
Spese processuali a carico dell'autorità / Stato
Apri la fonte ufficiale Archivio Entscheidsuche Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The defendant was accused of violating traffic regulations by using a mobile phone without a hands-free device while driving on a specific date. Although the prosecutor proposed a fine, the defendant requested acquittal, leading the court to review the evidence under relevant traffic and criminal procedural laws. Ultimately, the court pronounced the defendant not guilty of the charged traffic offense, resulting in the dismissal of the charges and assigning the resulting judicial fees and costs to the state.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art. 90 cifra, Art. 31 cpv. 1 LCStr, Art. 348 segg. CPP, Art. 84 segg, Art. 80 segg, Art. 3 cpv. 1 ONC; State v. Defendant (Traffic Violation Acquittal): Although the prosecutor proposed a fine, the defendant requested acquittal, leading the court to review the evidence under relevant traffic and criminal procedural laws. Ultimately, the court pronounced the defendant not guilty of the charged traffic offense, resulting in the dismissal of the charges and assigning the resulting judicial fees and costs to the state.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
infrazione alle norme della circolazione uso del telefono cellulare alla guida norme di procedura sindacato giurisdizionale decisione quadro azione penale Impiego, durante la guida, di un telefono senza dispositivo "mani libere";

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Art. 90 cifra
richiamati gli art. 90 cifra 1 LCStr in relazione con gli art.
Art. 31 cpv. 1 LCStr
This substantive provision concerning traffic rules is cited in the context leading to the acquittal, implying its relevance to the procedural framework of the decision, although it is not explicitly in the dispositive orders themselves as the grounds for acquittal.
Art. 348 segg. CPP
This procedural provision is cited in the context leading to the acquittal, implying its relevance to the procedural framework of the decision, although it is not explicitly in the dispositive orders themselves as the grounds for acquittal.
Art. 84 segg
This procedural provision is cited in the context leading to the acquittal, implying its relevance to the procedural framework of the decision, although it is not explicitly in the dispositive orders themselves as the grounds for acquittal.
Art. 80 segg
This procedural provision is cited in the context leading to the acquittal, implying its relevance to the procedural framework of the decision, although it is not explicitly in the dispositive orders themselves as the grounds for acquittal.
Art. 3 cpv. 1 ONC
This substantive provision concerning traffic rules is cited in the context leading to the acquittal, implying its relevance to the procedural framework of the decision, although it is not explicitly in the dispositive orders themselves as the grounds for acquittal.
Art. 90 cifra 1 LCStr
This substantive provision concerning traffic rules is cited in the context leading to the acquittal, implying its relevance to the procedural framework of the decision, although it is not explicitly in the dispositive orders themselves as the grounds for acquittal.
Art. 22 LTG
This procedural provision is cited in the context leading to the acquittal, implying its relevance to the procedural framework of the decision, although it is not explicitly in the dispositive orders themselves as the grounds for acquittal.
Generato dall'IA
91.2014.74
State v. Defendant (Traffic Violation Acquittal)
91.2013.226
State v. Defendant (Traffic Violation Acquittal)
91.2011.86
State v. Defendant (Traffic Violation Acquittal)
91.2014.82
State v. Accused (Traffic Violation Acquittal)

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
Art. 348 segg. CPP

This procedural provision is cited in the context leading to the acquittal, implying its relevance to the procedural framework of the decision, although it is not explicitly in the dispositive orders themselves as the grounds for acquittal.

Art. 84 segg.

This procedural provision is cited in the context leading to the acquittal, implying its relevance to the procedural framework of the decision, although it is not explicitly in the dispositive orders themselves as the grounds for acquittal.

Art. 80 segg.

This procedural provision is cited in the context leading to the acquittal, implying its relevance to the procedural framework of the decision, although it is not explicitly in the dispositive orders themselves as the grounds for acquittal.

Art. 3 cpv. 1 ONC

This substantive provision concerning traffic rules is cited in the context leading to the acquittal, implying its relevance to the procedural framework of the decision, although it is not explicitly in the dispositive orders themselves as the grounds for acquittal.

Art. 31 cpv. 1 LCStr

This substantive provision concerning traffic rules is cited in the context leading to the acquittal, implying its relevance to the procedural framework of the decision, although it is not explicitly in the dispositive orders themselves as the grounds for acquittal.

Art. 90 cifra 1 LCStr

This substantive provision concerning traffic rules is cited in the context leading to the acquittal, implying its relevance to the procedural framework of the decision, although it is not explicitly in the dispositive orders themselves as the grounds for acquittal.

Art. 22 LTG

This procedural provision is cited in the context leading to the acquittal, implying its relevance to the procedural framework of the decision, although it is not explicitly in the dispositive orders themselves as the grounds for acquittal.

Art. 64 Costi di giustizia

The costs of the proceedings (judicial costs and fees) are imposed on the State (Art. 2).

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Incarto n. 91.2012.89 14531/804 · Bellinzona 12 dicembre 2012 · Sentenza In nome della Repubblica e Cantone Ticino

Il Presidente della Pretura penale Marco Kraushaar

sedente con Petra Vanoni in qualità di segretaria per giudicare

IM 1

visto il decreto d’accusa n. 14531/804 del 25 maggio 2012;

preso atto che AINQ 1 ritiene l’imputato autore colpevole di infrazione alle norme della circolazione

per avere in data 9 gennaio 2012 in territorio di __________ circolato con il veicolo TI __________ impiegando, durante la guida,

un telefono senza dispositivo “mani libere”;

e propone la condanna alla multa di fr. 100.- oltre alla tassa di giustizia di fr. 30.- e alle spese di fr. 10.-;

rilevato che l’imputato chiede il proscioglimento;

richiamati gli art. 90 cifra 1 LCStr in relazione con gli art. 31 cpv. 1 LCStr; 3 cpv. 1 ONC; 80 segg.; 84 segg.; 348 segg. CPP; 22 LTG;

al termine dell’odierno dibattimento e dopo aver motivato oralmente la decisione;

pronuncia 1. IM 1 è prosciolto dall’imputazione di infrazione alle norme della circolazione per i fatti descritti nel decreto d'accusa n. 14531/804 del 25 maggio 2012.

2. La tassa di giustizia e le spese giudiziarie di complessivi fr. 240.- (duecentoquaranta) sono a carico dello Stato.

3. Questo giudizio può essere impugnato mediante appello; lo stesso va annunciato alla Pretura penale entro

10 giorni dalla comunicazione della sentenza, per scritto oppure oralmente a verbale. Entro lo stesso termine può essere chiesta la motivazione della sentenza.

4. Intimazione a:

- seduta stante

- per raccomandata

terzi implicati · P_GLOSS_TERZI

Il presidente: La segretaria:

IM 1

fr. 180.- tassa di giustizia

fr. 60.- spese giudiziarie

fr. 240.- totale