Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 944/2018 AI generated

Supreme Court allows retrial when lower court wrongly denies it based on insufficient evidence of participation in crime.

Case Number KKO 944/2018
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court granted a retrial order because the Court of Appeal incorrectly refused the defendant's request for continued proceedings. The lower court denied the request despite evidence suggesting the defendant participated in the alleged serious theft during investigation and court proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeal failed to properly apply the legal standard for granting retrials under the relevant criminal procedure code.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

OK 25 a luku 11 § 1 mom 1 kohta; OK 25 a luku 11 § 2 mom: A court must grant a retrial if the original decision was based on a failure to properly assess evidence regarding the defendant's participation in the alleged crime.

Keywords

AI generated
criminal procedure retrial participation in crime evidence assessment standard Court of Appeal error serious theft proceedings

Cited Legislation

AI generated
OK 25 a luku 11 § 1 mom 1 kohta
OK 25 a luku 11 § 1 mom 1 kohta
OK 25 a luku 11 § 2 mom
AI generated
kko-precedent_2013_39
Supreme Court grants retrial permission for new evidence challenging lower court's evidence assessment in assault case.
kko-precedent_2007_10
Supreme Court quashes appeal court verdict for failing to hear victim personally in criminal trial.
appeal_1983_helsinki__1608
Court of Appeal may add qualifying circumstances to a convicted person's decision based solely on their appeal if evidence supports it.
kko-precedent_2018_62
Supreme Court allows retrial when lower court dismisses appeal without verifying if defense arguments actually affect the case outcome.
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

Käräjäoikeus oli katsonut vastaajan osallistuneen tekijänä syytteen mukaiseen törkeään varkauteen vastaajan esitutkinnassa ja käräjäoikeudessa antaman kertomuksen, televalvontatietojen sekä muun asiassa esitetyn selvityksen perusteella. Hovioikeus ei myöntänyt vastaajalle jatkokäsittelylupaa. Korkeimman oikeuden päätöksestä ilmenevillä perusteilla katsottiin, että hovioikeuden olisi tullut myöntää jatkokäsittelylupa muutosperusteella.

OK 25 a luku 11 § 1 mom 1 kohta

OK 25 a luku 11 § 2 mom