Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 14.02.1985 3276 AI generated

Court convicted defendant of robbery and attempted robbery for aiding a joint crime.

Case Number Helsingin HO 14.02.1985 3276
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 upheld the conviction of the defendant for robbery and attempted robbery. The defendant was found to have attempted to steal a wallet using violence, which facilitated a subsequent robbery against victim B by an accomplice. The court ruled that the defendant's actions constituted joint criminal enterprise, leading to the final judgment.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Syyte 10 § syyte 10 §; A person who aids in the commission of a crime is jointly liable for the resulting offenses.

Keywords

AI generated
joint criminal enterprise robbery conviction attempted robbery accomplice liability criminal participation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Syyte 10 §
AI generated
kko-precedent_1995_156
Supreme Court dismisses robbery charge against accomplice who provided tools but did not plan or execute the crime.
kko-precedent_1988_17
Supreme Court allows treating prior final judgment acts as part of a continued crime under Criminal Code Section 7.8.
kko-precedent_1990_9
Attempted murder reduced to aggravated assault when defendant saved victim's life after attack.
kko-precedent_1997_117
Supreme Court merges multiple drug possession and aiding offenses into single crimes for sentencing reduction.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2024:4
Supreme Court allows robbery attempt and grievous assault charges for violent debt collection. The court upheld the lower court's sentencing for repeated assaults. The violence exceeded robbery limits, justifying the charges. The court rejected the appeal against the sentence length. The decision confirms the legal classification of the acts. The outcome supports the prosecution's request for specific charges. The court found the violence disproportionate to robbery. The sentence was deemed appropriate under the law. The decision clarifies the boundary between robbery and assault. The court applied the relevant criminal law provisions correctly.

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

Syytetty, joka oli väkivaltaisella pitelemisellä yrittänyt anastaa itselleen A:n lompakon, oli tällä toimella osaltaan tehnyt mahdolliseksi samassa tilaisuudessa B:hen kohdistuneen ryöstörikoksen toteuttamisen sekä siten osallistunut syytetyn kanssa yksissä tuumin toimineen, tuntemattomaksi jääneen henkilön samanaikaisesti suorittamaan B:n viinipullon ryöstöön.

Syytetty tuomittiin yksin teoin tehdyistä ryöstöstä ja ryöstön yrityksestä.

Läsnä: Liukko, Uoti ja Ritola (apuj.) Esittelijä: Martti Ojala

Lainvoimainen