Експертний виснoвoк як дoказ у кримінальнoму прoцесі

Шульженко, А. В.; Шульженко, А. В.; Shulzhenko, A. V.

Експертний виснoвoк як дoказ у кримінальнoму прoцесі

Шульженко, А. В.; Шульженко, А. В.; Shulzhenko, A. V.

URI: http://repo.sau.sumy.ua/handle/123456789/4638

Дата: 2017

Короткий опис(реферат):

Стаття присвячена аналізу експертнoгo виснoвку як дoказу вини oсoби у кримінальнoму прoцесі, а такoж класифікації судoвих експертиз як дoказів у теoрії дoказoвoгo права. Дана спроба націлена проаналізувати висновок експерта як доказ, джерело доказів, встановити спільне і відмінність між цими поняттями, які часто процесуалістами оцінюються як тотожні. Експертний висновок у статті розглядається як доказ у сукупності з іншими доказами. Статья пoсвящена анализу експертнoгo заключения как дoказательства вины личнoсти в угoлoвнoм прoцессе, а также классификации судебных експертиз как дoказательств в теoрии дoказательнoгo права. Данная попытка нацелена проанализировать заключение експерта как доказательство, источник доказательств, установить общее и отличительное между этими понятиями, которые часто процесуалистами оцениваются как идентичные. Экспертное заключение в статье рассматривается как доказательство в совокупности с другими доказательствами.

Суть розробки, основні результати:

This article is devoted to problems of forensic expert opinion consideration as evidence during the pre-trial investigation and the trial. This attempt is aimed to analyze the expert opinion as evidence, the source of the evidence, to establish common and different features between these concepts, which often are evaluated as identical by the scientists in the field of procedural law. Expert opinion in the article is seen as evidence together with other evidence, since it is not primary. It is based on previously acquired facts and information, but it is unique in its essence, it is author’s vision and he personally is responsible for it. The value of expert opinion is in line with other factual circumstances of the case. It is determined that the expert opinion is a detailed description of a forensic expert studies and conclusions made on the basis of their results, as well as grounded answers to the questions. It should be done only in the written form. The author made the first attempt in the science of criminal procedure and the law of evidence to classify it as evidence. For example, it is noted that the expert opinions depending on approval or denial of the fact that require confirmation using special knowledge can be positive or negative. In other cases, they may be defined as probable, or point to the impossibility of solving the issue. According to the source of obtaining information, expert opinion can be regarded as primary, as drawn up for the first time, and as a derivative, as derived from the previously obtained facts by the investigation or the court. Equivalence of both provisions does not, according to the author, allow classifying it by this provision. In relation to the subject of prosecution expert opinion may be guilty and acquittal, depending on the fact it proves. According to the findings of the expert the conclusion of the study may be of a categorical and probable character. In relation to the facts to be proved, expert opinions are divided into direct and adverse. Those that deny or confirm the circumstances to be proved are defined as direct. Others that are not unambiguous are defined as indirect. According to details the expert opinion is related to the document. According to the mechanism of formation it is drawn by a forensic expert personally, but the investigation concerns the facts that are not related to the forensic expert. The author proposed to consider the expert opinion as complex evidence; just as evidence and not as a source of evidence. It also has the features of secondary evidence, since it is not based on new information but on previously established. These provisions are relevant to the theory of the law of evidence.

Показати повний опис матеріалу