Positions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the Issue of Assessing the Sufficiency of Evidence When Sentencing Based on the Results of Examining Criminal Cases with the Participation of Jurors

This article draws attention to the problems associated with assessing the sufficiency of evidence in sentencing in criminal cases involving jurors. The main attention is paid to the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the issue of assessing the sufficiency of evidence in a trial involving jurors. The author notes that the Judicial board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in one of its decisions noted that the issue of evaluating evidence, including from the point of view of their sufficiency, belongs to the competence of jurors. Meanwhile, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation actually prohibits the presiding judge from evaluating evidence from the point of view of their sufficiency when passing an acquittal verdict of the jury. The guilty verdict of the jury does not prevent the acquittal if the presiding judge recognizes that there are no signs of a crime in the actions of the accused (part 4 of Article 348 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). An acquittal in this situation should be based on sufficient evidence indicating that there are no signs of a crime imputed to him in the actions of the accused. The Chairman, conducting his own assessment of the sufficiency of evidence, may recognize the absence of signs of a crime in this act and pass an acquittal, including contrary to the guilty verdict of the jury. Thus, the consideration of a criminal case in Court with the participation of jurors may end with the approval of the acquittal of the presiding judge, even if he admitted the absence of signs of a crime in what he had done (paragraph 2, paragraph 1 of Article 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). However, the author notes that art. 302 The Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation does not provide for such justification as “the absence of signs of a crime in the act”.