IV Ka 250/13
AI generated
Court upheld drunk driving sentence rejecting defendant's contradictory testimony as fabricated for appeal.
Poland (PL)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe appellate court upheld the lower court's conviction and sentence against the defendant's appeal. The defendant argued that the expert opinion was flawed and that his initial confession was retracted, claiming new medical conditions invalidated the breathalyzer results. The court rejected these claims, ruling that the defendant's new testimony was logically inconsistent with the evidence and clearly fabricated solely to secure a lighter sentence.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 7 k.p.k. w zw. z art. 8 k.p.w.; Art. 174 k.p.k.; The court's assessment of evidence is not bound by the defendant's initial confession if subsequent testimony is proven inconsistent and fabricated for procedural advantage.
Keywords
AI generated
drunk driving conviction
contradictory testimony
fabricated defense
breathalyzer evidence
appellate review
expert opinion validity
procedural fairness
Cited Legislation
AI generatedart. 8 k.p.w.
art. 7 k.p.k.
art. 174 k.p.k.
art. 39 § 2 k.p.s.w.
art. 82 § 1 k.p.s.w.
art. 424 § 1 k.p.k.
art. 437 § 1 k.p.k.
art. 109 § 2 k.p.w.
art. 636 § 1 k.p.k.
art. 119 k.p.w.
art. 8 i art. 21 pkt 2 ustawy z dnia 23 czerwca 1973 roku o opłatach w sprawach karnych
Cited Case Law
AI generatedIV KK 443/06