|Abstract: ||Darbe analizuojamas Lietuvos Respublikos Baudžiamasis kodeksas, kiti įstatymai, įvairių mokslinių knygų ir straipsnių autorių nuomonės, Lietuvos teismų praktika, bei keliamas klausimas, ar vieno smūgio ranka sudavimas į galvos sritį, dėl ko nukentėjusysis mirė, kvalifikuotinas kaip nužudymas.
Siekiant atsakyti į šį klausimą, buvo atliekama minėtų šaltinių lyginamoji, sisteminė, bei apibendrinamoji analizė.
Pirmoji darbo dalis skirta apžvelgti užsienio bei Lietuvos Baudžiamųjų kodeksų nuostatas, kurios nustato atsakomybę už nužudymą ir neatsargų gyvybės atėmimą. Nagrinėjami skirtumai pačiuose straipsnių pavadinimuose lingvistine prasme. Lyginama, kuriose šalyse šios veikos viena nuo kitos išskirtos aiškiau, o kuriose atrodo labai panašiai. Taip pat teisės teorijos požiūriu aiškinamasi šių sąvokų skirtumas, pasitelkiant įvairių mokslinių ir teisinių šaltinių informaciją, bei jų autorių nuomones. Be to, apžvelgiama minėtos veikos kvalifikavimo problematika Lietuvos teismų praktikoje.
Antroje darbo dalyje išskiriami ir analizuojami pagrindiniai kriterijai, pagal kuriuos Lietuvos teismai kaltės formą veikose priskiria netiesioginei tyčiai, arba neatsargumui. Aiškinama minėtų kriterijų svarba konkrečiuose teismų sprendimuose ir nutartyse. Taip pat analizuojama priežastinio ryšio svarba ir rūšys, bei kaltės formos kitimo galimybė besiplėtojant priežastiniam ryšiui.
Išanalizavus nagrinėjamą problematiką, iškelta hipotezė pasitvirtino dalinai. Prieita prie išvados, kad nusikalstamos veikos, kai asmeniui suduodamas vienas smūgis ranka į galvos sritį ir dėl to jis miršta, kvalifikuotinos kaip nužudymas, tačiau jokiu būdu nenustatant tokio kvalifikavimo būtinybės. Išanalizavus Lietuvos teismų praktiką, konstatuotina, kad atsižvelgiant į teismų išskirtus pagrindinius kriterijus minėtos veikos gali būti kvalifikuojamos ir kaip neatsargus gyvybės atėmimas. Taip pat apžvelgus teismų praktiką tapo aišku, kad šiuo metu dominuoja tokių veikų priskyrimas netiesioginei tyčiai.|
The paper analyses the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as other laws, the opinions of various authors of scientific books and articles, and Lithuanian case-law, and a question is raised, whether a single blow, inflicted by hand on the head area, as a result of which, the victim died, should be qualified as murder.
In order to answer this question, various sources were analysed in the paper: legal and scientific books, journals, on-line articles, the case-law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania and the statements of other courts along with substantiations of rulings, and comparative, conclusory and systemic analyses were conducted.
The first part of the paper aims to review the provisions of foreign criminal codes and the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, which define liability for murder and manslaughter. Differences in the titles of the articles themselves were analysed in a linguistic sense. A comparison is made to see which countries have these acts separated more clearly, and which define them very similarly to each other. Also, in terms of legal theory, the difference between these definitions is analysed according to the information of various scientific and legal sources and the opinions of their authors. Also, the problems of qualifying said acts are reviewed within Lithuanian case-law. It is highlighted that in the context of such qualifying, the 2009 ruling issued by the Panel of Judges of the Lithuanian Supreme Court, which unified the previous case-law, is of particular importance. This ruling defined the assessment of crimes where a person is killed with a single blow by hand to the head area. Also analysed was the individual opinion of V.Piesliakas regarding said ruling, where he categorically opposed the panel’s statement, saying that in such cases unified rules should not be set, and that each situation should be considered separately.
The second part of the paper distinguishes and analyses the main criteria according to which Lithuanian courts define the type of guilt in acts as indirect intent or carelessness. The importance of said criteria in specific court decisions and rulings is explained. The following court-defined criteria of highest importance were distinguished:
1. The life experience of the perpetrator (with an emphasis on martial arts)
2. The perpetrator’s behaviour after committing the act
3. Intensity of the blows (a single blow is not considered intensive violence)
4. The physical state of the victim (intoxicated with drugs or psychotropic substances)
5. Physical preparedness of the persons
6. The environment at the moment of committing the act
7. Motive of the crime (whether the crime was premeditated or spontaneous)
The narrowness and limitedness of evaluating the perpetrator’s life experience should be stressed, since the person’s age has little significance. Different persons with different life experience may not assess the situation in the same way or predict future consequences. Since this criterion is rather difficult to define, other aspects are more significant, such as the current or previous jobs of the perpetrator if they are related to violent situations (e.g. work with the police, security etc.), as well as involvement in contact sports where blows are inflicted constantly. To such persons, stricter requirements of understanding the consequences apply, which seems logical.
During case analyses, two types of cases emerged. The first type is a person’s death due to a direct blow by hand to the head area. As a result, due to a rotating motion of the encephalon, a blood vessel bursts in the brain and blood haemorrhages under the dura mater. Cases often feature the phrase “the blow was sufficiently strong”, but a problem is emerging that there is no definition on the precise strength of a blow that causes the rotating motion of the encephalon, thus it should be stated that a person who, although has an understanding of possible consequences, has no possibility to choose the strength of the blow that would match their expectations in cases when it is attempted to merely “teach a lesson” to the victim, or achieve any other aims rather than murder. The second type of cases are events where after the blow the victim falls and hits their head on a hard floor surface, usually asphalt, and as a result suffers head trauma (secondary trauma effect), and subsequently dies. It was found that even though the person died not from the direct blow but from the secondary trauma effect - hitting their head on the hard surface, courts consider the consequences to be causal. In order for the causality to be declared incidental, a source must emerge, i.e. a factor that does not depend on the perpetrator, which has caused the death of the victim.
It was found that in some cases one criterion that allows drawing a conclusion and assigning the act to a specific form of guilt, is offset by another, stronger one and the qualification fundamentally changes. Also analysed was the importance of assessing a causal relationship and types thereof, as well as the possibility of changing the form of guilt as the causal relationship develops. It was found that the possibility of predicting outcomes, as the causal relationship develops, is only possible in the aggravating direction. These are such situations where the perpetrator does not predict possible serious consequences (death), but after committing the act, seeing and understanding the clearly worsened physical state of the victim, understands the outcome, however, that does not mitigate their guilt. Aspects were reviewed that, in a specific situation, can reveal whether the perpetrator is indifferent towards the consequences or the opposite - not indifferent.
After analysing the problems, the hypothesis raised was partially proved. The conclusion was made that criminal acts where a single blow by hand is inflicted on a person’s head area, as a result of which, the person dies, should after all be qualified as murder, however, such qualification is in no way imperative. After analysing the Lithuanian case-law, it was declared that, considering the main criteria defined by the courts, said acts can also be qualified as manslaughter. Analysis of case-law has shown that the behaviour of the perpetrator after committing the act, as the consequences of it are understood, has a particular significance on such qualification. Also, after reviewing and comparing the Lithuanian case-law, both in the past, and currently, qualifying said acts according to LR Criminal Code article 129 is the predominant practice, although in separate cases, under specific circumstances and when outcomes where not predicted, the acts can also be qualified according to LR Criminal Code article 132.