Appeals Regarding Murder and Theft Convictions: Subsidiary Question Warning Sufficiency
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAThree defendants appealed their convictions for murder, attempted murder, qualified theft, and illegal possession of arms, resulting in twenty-year prison sentences and twenty-year exclusion from residence orders. The court joined the appeals, dismissed the appeals of the first two for lack of presented grounds, and rejected the appeal of the third defendant who argued that the procedure was void because the record did not explicitly state that he was warned before a subsidiary question regarding his complicity in the murder was put to the jury after the debates closed. The court reasoned that the public reading of the subsidiary questions by the presiding judge after the closure of the debates was sufficient to inform the appellant of the terms of the question, thus safeguarding his rights of defense, and that no statutory provision mandates a warning preceding the closure of debates under penalty of nullity.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAArt. 593 du Code de procédure pénale, Art. 378 du Code de procédure pénale, Art. 352 du Code de procédure pénale, Art. 351 du Code de procédure pénale; Appeals Regarding Murder and Theft Convictions: Subsidiary Question Warning Sufficiency: The court joined the appeals, dismissed the appeals of the first two for lack of presented grounds, and rejected the appeal of the third defendant who argued that the procedure was void because the record did not explicitly state that he was warned before a subsidiary question regarding his complicity in the murder was put to the jury after the debates closed. The court reasoned that the public reading of the subsidiary questions by the presiding judge after the closure of the debates was sufficient to inform the appellant of the terms of the question, thus safeguarding his rights of defense, and that no statutory provision mandates a warning preceding the closure of debates under penalty of nullity.
Mots-clés
Généré par l'IADispositions légales citées
Généré par l'IADécisions connexes
Généré par l'IAQuestions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator
Généré par l'IACited in the grounds for appeal concerning procedural regularity and alleged nullity, which the court rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Cited in the grounds for appeal concerning procedural regularity and alleged nullity, which the court rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Cited in the grounds for appeal concerning procedural regularity and alleged nullity, which the court rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Cited in the grounds for appeal concerning procedural regularity and alleged nullity, which the court rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Texte complet
REJET DES POURVOIS FORMES PAR : 1° X... (ANTOINE) ;
2° Y... (LUCIANO) ;
3° Z... (PIERRE), CONTRE : 1° UN ARRET RENDU LE 22 JUIN 1972 PAR LA COUR D'ASSISES DE LA CORSE, QUI, POUR MEURTRE, TENTATIVE DE MEURTRE, VOLS QUALIFIES, TENTATIVE DE VOL QUALIFIE, TENTATIVE DE VOL, DETENTION ILLEGALE D'ARMES, LES A CONDAMNES CHACUN A VINGT ANS DE RECLUSION CRIMINELLE ET VINGT ANS D'INTERDICTION DE SEJOUR ;
2° UN ARRET RENDU LE MEME JOUR ALLOUANT DES DOMMAGES-INTERETS AUX PARTIES CIVILES. LA COUR, VU LA CONNEXITE, PRONONCE LA JONCTION DES POURVOIS ;
I. SUR LES POURVOIS DE X... ET Y.... ATTENDU QU'AUCUN MOYEN N'EST PRODUIT ;
II. SUR LE POURVOI DE Z.... SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE DE CASSATION, PRIS DE LA VIOLATION DES ARTICLES 351, 352, 378, 593 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE, DES DROITS DE LA DEFENSE, DEFAUT DE MOTIFS ET MANQUE DE BASE LEGALE, "EN CE QU'IL RESULTE DE LA FEUILLE DES QUESTIONS QU'UNE QUESTION SUBSIDIAIRE A ETE POSEE CONCERNANT LA COMPLICITE DE Z... A L'OCCASION DU MEURTRE COMMIS SUR LA PERSONNE DE A..., SANS QU'IL SOIT CONSTATE AU PROCES-VERBAL QU'AVERTISSEMENT A ETE DONNE AU DEMANDEUR NI QUE LECTURE DE CETTE QUESTION AIT ETE DONNEE ;
"ALORS QUE LE DEFAUT DE CONSTATATION AU PROCES-VERBAL DE L'AVERTISSEMENT AU PREVENU QU'UNE QUESTION SUBSIDIAIRE SERAIT POSEE COMME RESULTANT DES DEBATS, ET DE LA LECTURE DE CETTE QUESTION, ENTRAINE NULLITE DE LA PROCEDURE" ;
ATTENDU QUE LE PROCES-VERBAL D'AUDIENCE CONSTATE QUE LE PRESIDENT APRES CLOTURE DES DEBATS A LU LES QUESTIONS QUI EN RESULTAIENT ;
QU'AINSI, LE DEMANDEUR A CONNU, A CE MOMENT-LA, LES TERMES DE LA QUESTION SUBSIDIAIRE LE CONCERNANT ;
QU'IL A DONC ETE MIS EN SITUATION DE RECLAMER LA PAROLE, S'IL LE CROYAIT UTILE, ET DE PRESENTER SES OBSERVATIONS, CE QUI A SUFFI POUR SAUVEGARDER LES DROITS DE LA DEFENSE ;
QU'ENFIN, AUCUNE DISPOSITION DE LA LOI N'EXIGE A PEINE DE NULLITE QU'UN AVERTISSEMENT, RELATIF A LA POSITION D'UNE QUESTION SUBSIDIAIRE, PRECEDE LA CLOTURE DES DEBATS ;
D'OU IL SUIT QUE LE MOYEN DOIT ETRE REJETE ;
ET ATTENDU QUE LA PROCEDURE EST REGULIERE ET QUE LA PEINE A ETE LEGALEMENT APPLIQUEE AUX FAITS DECLARES CONSTANTS PAR LA COUR ET LE JURY ;
REJETTE LE POURVOI.