VI Ka 1368/19
AI generated
Appeal dismissed; court upheld conviction for theft and denied defense's procedural objection regarding evidence review.
Poland (PL)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal against the first-instance conviction for theft, upholding the original judgment's findings. The defendant argued that the trial court erred in its procedural handling of evidence under Article 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court rejected this claim, finding no procedural flaw that could have influenced the verdict's outcome.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 438 ust. 2 k.p.k.; Art. 624 § 1 k.p.k.; The appeal based on procedural errors is dismissed if the alleged flaw did not affect the substance of the judgment.
Keywords
AI generated
criminal appeal
procedural error
theft conviction
evidence review
court costs
defense counsel
judgment upheld
Cited Legislation
AI generatedArt. 438 ust. 2 k.p.k.
Art. 624 § 1 k.p.k.
Art. 29 ust. 1 Prawo o adwokaturze
§ 17 ust. 2 pkt 4 rozporządzenia Ministra Sprawiedliwości z dnia 3 października 2016 r.
art. 438 pkt 1 k.p.k
art. 438 pkt 2 k.p.k
art. 438 pkt 3 k.p.k
art. 438 pkt 4 k.p.k
art. 439 k.p.k
art. 427 § 1 k.p.k
Cited Case Law
AI generatedRelated Decisions
AI generatedIV Ka 934/23
Appeal court modifies first-instance verdict on sexual assault charges, upholds conviction but changes sentencing and costs.
IX Ka 808/23
Court dismissed appeal claiming excessive sentence, upholding one-year eight-month community service for repeated theft.
VII Ka 69/21
Appeal dismissed; court upheld first-instance verdict on robbery charges as procedural and factual errors were not found.
II AKa 90/25
Appeal dismissed for excessive sentence; court found no error in first instance sentencing decision.
II AKa 244/22
Appeal court corrects lower court's procedural error regarding state fees and clarifies proximity ban wording.