Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Itä-Suomen HO 03.03.1981 PÄ-174/81 II AI generated

Court of Appeal rejected murder and possession charges as separate acts rather than one continuous transaction.

Case Number Itä-Suomen HO 03.03.1981 PÄ-174/81 II
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal in Eastern Finland rejected the defendant's appeal against a conviction for murder and illegal possession of a weapon. The lower court found the defendant guilty of two distinct crimes: possession of a weapon in a public place and excessive self-defense resulting in death. The Court of Appeal agreed that these acts constituted separate legal transactions rather than a single continuous act, thus upholding the conviction.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Section 10 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Section 10 of the Act on the Administration of Justice: The Court of Appeal may reject an appeal if the lower court's decision is based on a correct application of law and facts, establishing that multiple criminal acts can constitute separate offenses even if they occur in close succession.

Keywords

AI generated
separate criminal acts murder conviction weapon possession excessive self-defense Court of Appeal criminal procedure single transaction

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 10 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Section 10 of the Act on the Administration of Justice
AI generated
appeal_1983_eastern-finland__665
Court dismissed separate sentencing for continued driving without license, merging it into negligence in traffic.
appeal_1982_eastern-finland__1596
Court merged multiple traffic offenses into one act for sentencing purposes.
kko-precedent_2007_79
Supreme Court quashes prison sentence without trial; defendant must be heard personally before conviction. Outcome: case remanded to High Court.
kko-other_2018_944
Supreme Court allows retrial when lower court wrongly denies it based on insufficient evidence of participation in crime.
kko-precedent_2013_62
Supreme Court allows appeal when lower court ignores mitigating sentence without explanation, effectively remaking trial reasoning.

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

KO oli tuominnut syytetyn yksin teoin tehdyistä teräaseen hallussapidosta yleisellä paikalla ja hätävarjelun liioitteluna tehdystä taposta. Tappo oli tapahtunut sanottua teräasetta käyttäen. HO katsoi, ettei näitä rikoksia ollut tehty yhdellä teolla.

KKO:n ratkaisu:

Päätös n:o 2645, A:23.7.1981: ei valituslupaa.