Hide
Show all
Email this article Redistribution of Responsibility in Framing Criminal Charges? An Empirical Study of the Modifications of Charges during Criminal Trial in Slovenia
Abstract
While several important consequences have been associated with modifications of the charges during the criminal trial, empirical studies into this phenomenon remain limited. To address this gap, the article delves into the possibilities of charge modifications during the trial in Slovenia and the impact of these possibilities on the dynamics between the court and the prosecutor. Its main objective is to investigate whether possibilities for charge modifications have the potential to partially redistribute responsibility for formulating the criminal charge between the prosecutor and the court. Using a dataset of criminal court judgments for the offences of manslaughter and murder and judgments of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, we examine the frequency and intensity of charge modifications during the trial, as well as their potential causes. We identify some factors contributing to the prosecutor’s modifications of the charges as systemic: the court’s active role in gathering evidence and establishing relevant facts on its own, which may reveal errors in the indictment or prevent the prosecutor from proving his charge, and the prosecutor’s reliance on court-appointed experts during the proceedings. The article represents the first comprehensive empirical investigation within the Slovenian legal system on this topic, offering insights that can contribute to the ongoing debate on improving procedural efficiency in similar systems worldwide.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
LITERATURE
Alschuler A.W., The Prosecutor’s Role in Plea Bargaining, “The University of Chicago Law Review” 1968, vol. 36(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1598832.
Ambrož M., Umor na grozovit način, “Pravna praksa” 2007, vol. 26(12).
Ashworth A., Prosecution, Police and Public – A Guide to Good Gatekeeping?, “The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice” 1984, vol. 23(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2311.1984.tb00495.x.
Bošnjak M., Sklepno razmišljanje ob raziskavi analiza poteka in trajanja kazenskih postopkov v Sloveniji, [in:] Potek kazenskih postopkov v Sloveniji: analiza stanja in predlogi za spremembe, ed. M. Bošnjak, Ljubljana 2005.
Damaška M., Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure: A Comparative Study, “University of Pennsylvania Law Review” 1973, vol. 121(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3311301.
Fry E., Legal Recharacterization and the Materiality of Facts at the International Criminal Court: Which Changes Are Permissible?, “Leiden Journal of International Law” 2016, vol. 29(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156516000157.
Gilliéron G., Public Prosecutors in the United States and Europe: A Comparative Analysis with Special Focus on Switzerland, France, and Germany, Cham 2014, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04504-7.
Gorkič P., Opis kaznivega dejanja v kazenskem postopku, prvi del: vsebinske in formalne razsežnosti opisa kaznivega dejanja, “Pravna praksa” 2018, vol. 37(2).
Graham K., Overcharging, “Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law” 2014, vol. 11(1).
Hafner M., Judging Homicide Defendants by Their Brains: An Empirical Study on the Use of Neuroscience in Homicide Trials in Slovenia, “Journal of Law and the Biosciences” 2019, vol. 6(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsz006.
Heller K.J., ‘A Stick to Hit the Accused With’: The Legal Recharacterization of Facts under Regulation 55, [in:] The Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court: A Critical Account of Challenges and Achievements, ed. C. Stahn, Oxford–New York 2015, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198705161.003.0039.
Jelenič-Novak M., Auersperger Matić A., Čibej Z., Gorkič P., Vmesna faza in glavna obravnava, [in:] Izhodišča za nov model kazenskega postopka, ed. K. Šugman, Ljubljana 2006.
Kristková A., Kandalec P., The Principle of Opportunity in the Czech Criminal Procedure Code, “Studia Iuridica Lublinensia” 2016, vol. 25(1), DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2016.25.1.239.
Kuczyńska H., The Accusation Model Before the International Criminal Court: Study of Convergence of Criminal Justice Systems, Cham 2015, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17626-0.
Medica V., Državni tožilec kot enakopravna stranka v kazenskem postopku ali sodnik v sivi togi?, Ljubljana 2023 (PhD thesis).
Ntanda Nsereko D.D., Prosecutorial Discretion before National Courts and International Tribunals, “Journal of International Criminal Justice” 2005, vol. 3(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/3.1.124.
Plesničar M.M., The Individualization of Punishment: Sentencing in Slovenia, “European Journal of Criminology” 2013, vol. 10(4), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370812469858.
Stacked: Where Criminal Charge Stacking Happens – and Where It Doesn’t, “Harward Law Review” 2023, vol. 136(5).
Stahn C., Modification of the Legal Characterization of Facts in the ICC System: A Portrayal of Regulation 55, “Criminal Law Forum” 2005, vol. 16(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-005-2231-5.
Stith K., The Arc of the Pendulum: Judges, Prosecutors, and the Exercise of Discretion, “Yale Law Journal” 2008, vol. 117(7), DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/20454685.
Stuckenberg C.-F., Double Jeopardy and Ne Bis in Idem in Common Law and Civil Law Jurisdictions, [in:] The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process, eds. D.K. Brown, J.I. Turner, B. Weisser, New York 2019, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190659837.013.26.
Šugman Stubbs K., Strukturne spremembe slovenskega kazenskega procesnega prava v zadnjih dvajsetih letih, “Zbornik znanstvenih razprav” 2015, vol. 75(1).
Šugman Stubbs K., Gorkič P., Dokazovanje v kazenskem postopku, Ljubljana 2011.
Šugman Stubbs K., Gorkič P., Fišer Z., Temelji kazenskega procesnega prava, Ljubljana 2020.
Tumanishvili G., Indictment and Deviation Therefrom Trial on Merits, “Journal of Law” 2016, no. 1.
ONLINE SOURCES
Jančar M., Umor ... je napisal, 19.8.2020, https://www.iusinfo.si/medijsko-sredisce/kolumne/268911 (access: 10.1.2024).
Stevens L., Wilde B. de, Cupido M., Fry E., Meijer S., De tenlastelegging als grondslag voor de rechterlijke beslissing, 2016, https://repository.wodc.nl/bitstream/handle/20.500.12832/2208/2597_Volledige_Tekst_tcm28-132520.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y (access: 10.1.2024).
MISCELLANEOUS
Plesničar M.M., Kaznovalna politika pri spolni kriminaliteti, Ljubljana 2022 (research project).
Plesničar M.M., Poenotenje odločanja o sankcijah v kazenskih postopkih, Ljubljana 2022 (research project).
LEGAL ACTS
Criminal Code, Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, nos. 50/12, 6/16–54/15, 38/16, 27/17, 23/20, 91/20, 95/21, 186/21, 105/22 – ZZNŠPP in 16/23.
Criminal Procedure Act, Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 176/21, 96/22 – odl. US, 2/23 – odl. US in 89/23 – odl. US.
CASE LAW
Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia of 12 April 1997, no. U-I-289/95.
Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia of 12 May 2005, no. Up-328/03-21, Concurring Opinion of Judge Z. Fišer.
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia of 28 January 2010, no. I Ips 250/2009.
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia of 25 November 2010, no. I Ips 83/2010.
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia of 16 January 2014, no. I Ips 61800/2010-63.
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia of 7 May 2017, no. I Ips 6155/2013.
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia of 24 May 2018, no. I Ips 52779/2014.
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia of 7 February 2020, no. I Ips 97604/2010.
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia of 21 May 2020, no. I Ips 2730/2015.
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia of 3 April 2021, no. I Ips 3691/2013.
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia of 6 May 2021, no. I Ips 18657/2014.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2025.34.1.11-27
Date of publication: 2025-05-23 14:02:55
Date of submission: 2024-03-07 15:06:22
Statistics
Indicators
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2025 Lora Briški
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.