Decisions of the Supreme Court on Cases in Drug Crimes That Demonstrate that the Crime is Inadmissible
In this article, we will consider the inadmissibility of the crime of buying and supplying drugs for use in some decisions of the court and the acquittal orders for this purpose. Pre v,;
Inadmissible crimes:
Het. Attempting to kill by firing an empty pistol, attempting to kill by shooting someone who is already dead are examples of crimes that cannot be committed.
Inadmissible Crimes Doctrine, Muhal Criminality It is also called Unfavorable Attempt. If we want to describe the Inadmissible Crime, we mean: “The act or the vehicle used to commit the crime, or Offense which is wasted due to the unsuitability of the subject, Guilt It is an attempt that does not result.”
As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has evaluated drug offenses within the framework of inadmissible offenses and made some of the following decisions.
T.C
SUPREME COURT
10.CEZADAIRESSE
PRINTER:2009/2548
DECISION:2010/3279
DECEMBER DATE: 15.02.2010
“... Accused of drug trafficking... File examined. Examination of the sentence about the defendant S.A.: 1-According to the incident or stay record, the accounts of the record keeping witnesses and the defenses; when the defendant calls from a previously known cell phone number to obtain drugs from H.A., the other defendant convicted of drug trafficking on the day of the incident, in the course of which H.A. the telephone was answered by the officers who suspected the situation, with the impression that the defendant was in contact with H., and the conversation with the actual officer regarding the purchase of ,... DEGRADATION, was unanimously decided on 15.02.2010.”
T.C
SUPREME COURT
10.CEZADAIRESSE
ESSENCE: 2016/3350
DÉCEMBRE: 2017/166
DECEMBER DATE: 23.01.2017
“... B) Examination of the sentencing provisions against Defendants I. and S. for the crime of “possession of drugs for use”: According to the evidence collected and the contents of the file; Defendants I. and S. 'The other defendant for the purchase of drugs was A.” Víamos a su casa, taló a A., que el cambio no encontrar, perché no drogas está a la casa, A.” that he went out of the house in search of drugs, during which time law enforcement officers, due to another investigation, A. 'that he came to search his residence, that they did not find drugs in the house in their search, that other people waiting at the house came to buy drugs, and A.” The law enforcement officers, who learned that he had gone out of the house in order to find them drugs, waited for Ali to come home with the necessary equipment.” Děk je,,,. subject to exchange and it is not possible to purchase them, since their actions are of an inoperable criminal nature, it was decided unanimously on 23.01.2017 that instead of acquitting the defendants, their convictions were suspended,... on 23.01.2017...”
T.C
SUPREME COURT
9.CEZADAIRESSE
ESSENCE: 2015/2206
DECREE: 2016/2500
DECEMBER DATE: 17.03.2016
: “... 1- V M.B.K. a A.O.: Defendants who have not seized any drugs or stimulants themselves and have not been identified by a technical method as well as using drugs or stimulants have been seized by security officers of the criminal drug substance before the meeting agreed with the other defendant Y.T. because of the fact that the defendants are not allowed to receive the article in question, that there is an inadmissibility a, legal elements, the idea of distortion in the communique was not adopted... To its approval,... 17.03.2016...”
T.C
SUPREME COURT
10.CEZADAIRESSE
PRINT: 2009/5954
: 2011/4568
DECEMBER DATE: 24.05.2011
: “... A- Examination of the sentence on defendant E.: Otras C. a O. 'C. on his mobile phone, because of the instructions of the officers. In which he did not pick up the phone and sent a message to the defendant saying, “I'm on the bus, send a text,” and the defendant replied, “Are you on your way, are you coming, I'll pick you up at Shell?” in which the defendant repeatedly wrote a message saying “be there in 10-15 minutes”, that it was not possible to sell or give it to the accused, and accordingly, the crime was inadmissible on the part of the accused. and without regard to the absence of legal elements of the committed crime, the conviction of the accused in lieu of acquittal, its dissolution, was unanimously decided on 24.05.2011...”
Artigos relacionados