Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 21.03.1978 39/78 AI generated

Witness failure to appear without notice leads to dismissal of prosecution appeal for absence fine.

Case Number Vaasan HO 21.03.1978 39/78
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court of appeal dismissed the prosecution's appeal against a witness's absence fine. The witness failed to appear in court without notifying the authorities, causing the trial to be adjourned and the prosecution to withdraw two other witnesses. Consequently, the court ruled that the question of examining this witness as a testifying person had also ceased, thereby exempting him from the fine.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

OK 17 luvun 38 §:n 2 momentin nojalla: If a witness fails to appear in court without notifying the authorities, the prosecution's appeal against the absence fine is dismissed because the examination of the witness has ceased.

Keywords

AI generated
witness absence failure to notify absence fine prosecution appeal trial adjournment testifying person dismissed appeal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
OK 17 luvun 38 §:n 2 moment
Hovioikeus katsoi, että myös kysymys A:n kuulustelemisesta todistajana oli rauennut, ja OK 17 luvun 38 §:n 2 momentin nojalla vapautti hänet virallisen syyttäjän valituksesta alioikeuden hänelle tuomitsemasta poissaolosakosta.
AI generated
appeal_1982_eastern-finland__1687
Defendant must pay witness costs when witness testimony is essential for case resolution.
kko-precedent_1997_128
Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding witness testimony in defendant's absence and orders fine for unexcused absence.
kko-precedent_1987_43
Supreme Court allows state witness costs when defendant denies guilt at police stage but admits it in court.
appeal_1980_rovaniemi__529
Witness summons by prosecutor does not bar later testimony if no prosecution charge exists.
kko-precedent_1988_14
Witness forced to pay civil litigation costs for delay caused by false statement in civil case.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Juttuun oli kutsuttu todistajiksi kolme henkilöä, joista A oli laillista estettä ilmoittamatta jäänyt oikeuteen saapumatta.

Syytetyn poissaolon vuoksi juttu lykättiin virallisen syyttäjän luopuessa kuulustuttamasta kahta paikalle saapunutta todistajaa.

Hovioikeus katsoi, että myös kysymys A:n kuulustelemisesta todistajana oli rauennut, ja OK 17 luvun 38 §:n 2 momentin nojalla vapautti hänet virallisen syyttäjän valituksesta alioikeuden hänelle tuomitsemasta poissaolosakosta.

(Ään.). Eri mieltä oleva jäsen pysytti poissaolosakon.

Lainvoimainen