RELEVANCE AND RELIABILITY OF AN EXPERT CONCLUSION AS A CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING FORENSIC EXAMINATION
Abstract
Based on the analysis of special literature, regulations and forensic expert practice, the article considers the main provisions related to formation of criteria for evaluating a forensic expert report as a source of evidence in terms of their relevance and admissibility.
Arguments are provided regarding the fact that if objects investigated by a forensic expert or solved tasks do not relate to materials of criminal proceedings, then, accordingly, a forensic expert report should be recognized as an irrelevant source of evidence.
When assessing admissibility of a forensic expert report, it is crucial to establish whether a forensic examination was appointed and conducted in accordance with the procedural order. Such an evaluation criterion is supported by regulations of Article Four of the Fundamental Law of Ukraine: “On Forensic Science”, according to which independence of a forensic expert and validity of his findings are ensured by the procedure for appointing a forensic expert determined by law.
It is argued that calling on a forensic expert as a witness for the purpose of clarifying and supplementing his report may lead to his withdrawal from the criminal process by means of recusal. An expert who has conducted forensic examination, interrogated as a witness, will not be able to participate in this criminal proceeding as a forensic expert in the future. If a forensic expert interrogated as a witness will carry out, for example, an additional forensic examination in this criminal proceeding in the future, then it may be recognized as inadmissible evidence, since it was conducted by a witness in this criminal proceeding, which is prohibited by law. That is, based on the regulations of the current criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine, a forensic expert can provide clarifications on the issues of forensic examination carried out by him in criminal proceedings only as a forensic expert and not as a witness.
References
Butyrin, A. Iu. (2006). Teoriia i praktika sudebnoi stroitelno-tekhnicheskoi ekspertizy. Moscow [in Russian].
Cheltcov-Bebutov, M. A. (1995). Kurs ugolovno-protcessualnogo prava: Ocherki po istorii suda i ugolovnogo protcessa v rabovladelcheskikh, feodalnykh i burzhuaznykh gosudarstvakh. Sankt-Peterburg [in Russian].
Foinitckii, I. Ia. (1996). Kurs ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva: v 2 t. T. ІІ. Sankt-Peterburg, [in Russian].
Golovko, L. V. (2009). Materialy k postroeniiu sravnitelnogo ugolovno-protcessualnogo prava: istochniki, dokazatelstva, prevaritelnoe proizvodstvo. Trudy iuridicheskogo fakulteta MGU im. M. V. Lomonosova. Kn. 11. Moscow [in Russian].
Gorskii, G. F., Kokorev, L. D., Elkind, P. S. (1978). Problemy dokazatelstv v sovetskom ugolovnom protcesse. Voronezh [in Russian].
Iakubovich, N. A. (1989). Gnoseologicheskie osnovy dokazyvaniia po ugolovnomu delu. Kurs sovetskogo ugolovnogo protcessa: Obshchaia chast. Moscow [in Russian].
Karneeva, L. M. (1988). Dokazatelstva v sovetskom ugolovnom protcesse: ucheb. posob. Volgograd [in Russian].
Kryminalnyi kodeks Ukrainy (2001): Zakon Ukrainy vid 05.04.2001 r. № 2341- III (zi zmin. ta dopov.). Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy (VVR). № 25–26. St. 131 [in Ukrainian].
Kryminalnyi protsesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy (2013): Zakon Ukrainy vid 13.04.2012 r. № 4651-VI (zi zmin. ta dopov.). Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy (VVR). № 9–10, 11–12, 13. St. 88 [in Ukrainian].
Lupinskaia, P. A. (1976). Resheniia v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. Ikh vidy, soderzhanie i forma. Moscow [in Russian].
Minkovskii, G. M. (1956). Predely dokazyvaniia v sovetskom ugolovnom protcesse. Vsesoiuz. in-t iurid. nauk Miniusta SSSR. Moscow [in Russian].
Mykheienko, M. M., Nor, V. T., Shybiko, V. P. (1999). Kryminalnyi protses Ukrainy: pidruchnyk. 2-he vyd., pererob. i dopov. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Orlov, Iu. K. (2001). Osnovy teorii dokazatelstv v ugolovnom protcesse: nauch.-prakt. posob. Moscow [in Russian].
Pchelina, O. V. (2010). Osoblyvosti predmeta dokazuvannia u kryminalnykh spravakh pro ekonomichni zlochyny ta yikh vplyv na metodyku rozsliduvannia. (Abstract of candidates thesis). KhNUVS. Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].
Peshkov, M. A. (1999). Zakon i politceiskaia praktika proizvodstva aresta i obyska v ugolovnom protcesse SShA (doktrina «dostatochnoe osnovanie»). Rossiiskii sledovatel. № 4 [in Russian].
Pro sudovu ekspertyzu (1994): Zakon Ukrainy vid 25.02.1994 r. № 4038-KhII (zi zminamy ta dopov.). Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy (VVR). № 28. St. 232 [in Ukrainian].
Pro zatverdzhennia Instruktsii pro pryznachennia ta provedennia sudovykh ekspertyz ta ekspertnykh doslidzhen ta Naukovo-metodychnykh rekomendatsii z pytan pidhotovky ta pryznachennia sudovykh ekspertyz ta ekspertnykh doslidzhen: nakaz Miniustu Ukrainy vid 08.10.1998 r. № 53/5 (zi zmin. ta dopov.; u red. nakazu vid 27.07.2015 r. № 1350/5). URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z0705-98 (data zvernennia: 29.08.2020) [in Ukrainian].
Puchko, D. V. (2019). Do pytannia pro umovy vyznannia vysnovku sudovoi ekspertyzy dopustymym dzherelom dokaziv u kryminalnomu provadzhenni. International scientific and practical conference “Legal Practice in EU Countries and Ukraine at the Modern Stage” (Arad (Romania), 25–26.01.2019) [in Ukrainian].
Puchko, D. V. (2020). Do pytannia otsiniuvannia rezultativ sudovoi budivelno-tekhnichnoi ekspertyzy u kryminalnomu provadzhenni. Teoriia ta praktyka sudovoi ekspertyzy i kryminalistyky: zb. nauk. pr. Eds.: O. M. Kliuiev, V. Yu. Shepitko ta in. Kharkiv. Vyp. 21 [in Ukrainian].
Samuticheva, E. Iu. (2015). Zakliuchenie eksperta i ego otcenka v ugolovnom protcesse. (Сandidates thesis). Moscow [in Russian].
Sheifer, S. A. (1997). Dokazatelstva i dokazyvanie po ugolovnym delam: problemy teorii i pravovogo regulirovaniia. Toliatti [in Russian].
Simakova-Yefremian, E. B. (2016). Kompleksni sudovo-ekspertni doslidzhennia: teoriia ta praktyka: monohrafiia. Kharkiv: Pravo [in Ukrainian].
Sovetskii ugolovnyi protcess. (1956). Ed.: D. S. Karev. Moscow [in Russian].
Strogovich, M. S. (1991). Izbrannye trudy: v 3 t. T. 3. Teoriia sudebnykh dokazatelstv. A. M. Larin (ed.). Moscow [in Russian].
Sychevskyi, V. V. (2015). Aktualni pytannia nalezhnosti dokaziv u kryminalnomu provadzhenni. Ievropeiski perspektyvy. № 4 [in Ukrainian].
Ugolovno-protcessualnoe pravo Rossiiskoi Federatcii (2004): uchebnik. P. A. Lupinskaia (ed.). Moscow [in Russian].
Ugolovnyi protcess (1995): ucheb. dlia vuzov. P. A. Lupinskaia (ed.). Moscow [in Russian].
Ugolovnyi protcessualnyi kodeks Ukrainy: Nauchno-prakticheskii kommentarii (2013). Eds.: S. V. Kivalov, S. N. Mishchenko, V. Iu. Zakharchenko. Kharkiv [in Russian].
Ulianova, L. T. (1959). Otcenka dokazatelstv sudom pervoi instantcii. Moscow [in Russian].
Vladimirov, L. E. (2000). Uchenie ob ugolovnykh dokazatelstvakh. Tula [in Russian].
Yurydychna entsyklopediia: u 6 t. (2002). Eds.: Yu. S. Shemshuchenko (vidp. red.) ta in. Kyiv. T. 4: N – P [in Ukrainian].
Abstract views: 328 PDF Downloads: 1166
