Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Kouvolan HO 16.06.1981 971/81 AI generated

Court allows concurrent crimes sentencing credit for time lost due to detention in a prior case.

Case Number Kouvolan HO 16.06.1981 971/81
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal consolidated two separate proceedings regarding concurrent crimes and reduced the sentence in the first case. The defendant was detained in the second case, which resulted in a complete acquittal, yet the time lost was recognized as relevant to the first case. The court applied the Criminal Code to grant credit for the detention period against the sentence imposed in the earlier judgment.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Criminal Code Chapter 11 Section 1; Criminal Code Chapter 11 Section 10: Time lost due to detention in a subsequent case where the defendant was acquitted may be credited against the sentence imposed in a prior case involving concurrent crimes.

Keywords

AI generated
concurrent crimes sentencing credit detention time acquittal effect Criminal Code Chapter 11

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Criminal Code Chapter 11 Section 1
AI generated
appeal_1983_eastern-finland__969
Court of Appeal separated two continuous selling offenses into distinct crimes due to a prior judgment gap.
kko-precedent_2017_79
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; court correctly reduced sentence for time lost due to detention in related criminal proceedings.
appeal_1980_rovaniemi__550
Court held two traffic violations constitute one offense when committed in a single act.
appeal_1984_helsinki__2686
Court of Appeal dismissed prosecution appeal to increase sentences because the lower court's finding of guilt was not a crime.
appeal_1984_helsinki__1582
Court dismisses appeal against conviction for rape, unlawful restraint, and violation of sexual modesty. Appeal rejected as charges are distinct crimes.

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

Raastuvanoikeus oli käsitellyt saman henkilön tekemiä reaalikonkurrenssissa olevia rikoksia koskevat asiat erikseen. Ensiksi ratkaistua asiaa käsiteltäessä syytetty oli ollut raastuvanoikeudessa henkilökohtaisesti läsnä pidätettynä jälkimmäisen asian vuoksi. Syytetty valitti kummastakin päätöksestä, ja asiat käsiteltiin hovioikeudessa yhdessä. Jälkimmäisessä asiassa syyte hylättiin hovioikeudessa kokonaan. Vapaudenmenetyksen jälkimmäisessä asiassa katsottiin rikoslain 3 luvun 11 §:n nojalla aiheutuneen muun saman asian yhteydessä syytteen tai valmistavan tutkinnan kohteena olleen rikoksen johdosta.

Tuo vapaudenmenetysaika vähennettiin aikajärjestyksessä ensiksi ratkaistussa asiassa tuomitusta rangaistuksesta.

Lainvoimainen