Rape Convict's Appeal on Orality Principle Rejected
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAA defendant, convicted of aggravated rape and sentenced to twelve years of imprisonment, appealed, alleging a violation of the principle of orality of the debates because no witnesses were heard without noting the impossibility of their production, contrary to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, noting that the official record showed that although three cited witnesses did not appear, the civil party was heard by the President's discretionary power, as were three other witnesses, one at the request of the Public Prosecutor and the others at the request of the defense, and furthermore, an expert was heard after taking the required oath; the Court reasoned that respecting the principle of orality does not require that heard witnesses must have been cited and served, but allows for appearances based on the President's discretionary authority, rendering the sole ground for appeal unfounded.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAArt. 347 du Code de procédure pénale, Art. 168 du Code de procédure pénale; Rape Convict's Appeal on Orality Principle Rejected: The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, noting that the official record showed that although three cited witnesses did not appear, the civil party was heard by the President's discretionary power, as were three other witnesses, one at the request of the Public Prosecutor and the others at the request of the defense, and furthermore, an expert was heard after taking the required oath; the Court reasoned that respecting the principle of orality does not require that heard witnesses must have been cited and served, but allows for appearances based on the President's discretionary authority, rendering the sole ground for appeal unfounded.
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'IAThe appeal based on the violation of this article was rejected.
Cited in the reasoning to confirm that an expert had sworn in according to the prescribed forms, supporting the overall regularity of the procedure which was upheld by the rejection of the appeal.
Texte complet
STATUANT SUR LE POURVOI FORME PAR :
- X... NACER,
CONTRE L'ARRET DE LA COUR D'ASSISES DE PARIS, EN DATE DU 8 JUILLET 1983, QUI, POUR VIOL AGGRAVE, L'A CONDAMNE A 12 ANS DE RECLUSION CRIMINELLE ET CONTRE L'ARRET RENDU LE MEME JOUR PAR LA COUR QUI A STATUE SUR LES INTERETS CIVILS ;
VU LE MEMOIRE PRODUIT ;
SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE DE CASSATION, PRIS DE LA VIOLATION DE L'ARTICLE 347 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE ET DE LA REGLE DE L'ORALITE DES DEBATS ;
" EN CE QU'IL RESULTE DES MENTIONS DU PROCES-VERBAL DES DEBATS QU'AUCUN TEMOIN N'A ETE ENTENDU SANS QU'IL SOIT CONSTATE L'IMPOSSIBILITE DE PRODUIRE DES TEMOINS ;
" ATTENDU QUE SI LE PROCES-VERBAL DES DEBATS CONSTATE QUE LES TROIS TEMOINS CITES N'ONT PAS COMPARU, IL RESULTE DU MEME DOCUMENT QUE CONTRAIREMENT AUX ALLEGATIONS DU MOYEN, LA PARTIE CIVILE A ETE ENTENDUE EN VERTU DU POUVOIR DISCRETIONNAIRE DU PRESIDENT DE MEME QUE TROIS TEMOINS, LE PREMIER A LA DEMANDE DU MINISTERE PUBLIC ET LES AUTRES A LA REQUETE DE LA DEFENSE ;
QU'AU DEMEURANT, LEDIT PROCES-VERBAL ENONCE QU'UN EXPERT ACQUIS AUX DEBATS A ETE ENTENDU APRES AVOIR PRETE SERMENT DANS LES FORMES PRESCRITES PAR L'ARTICLE 168 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE ;
QU'IL N'IMPORTE, POUR QUE SOIT RESPECTE LE PRINCIPE DE L'OCALITE DES DEBATS QUE LES TEMOINS ENTENDUS A L'AUDIENCE AIENT ETE CITES ET SIGNIFIES, OU QU'ILS AIENT ETE APPELES PAR LE PRESIDENT EN VERTU DE SON POUVOIR DISCRETIONNAIRE ;
QUE LE MOYEN NE SAURAIT DONC ETRE ACCUEILLI ;
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.