2024-04-07 00:15:28
On March 28, the LAT extended panel of seven judges changed the previous court decisions, which sentenced the woman from Vilnius to a real four-year prison sentence.
According to the newly announced sentence, the woman was sentenced to two and a half years of imprisonment, its execution was suspended for one year, and she was ordered not to leave the city (district) of her place of residence without the permission of the institution supervising the convict.
The Criminal Code provides for imprisonment from 7 to 15 years for murder, and in some cases up to 20 years or even life. Such a crime is considered extremely serious. At the time, murder in the heat of the moment was classified as a serious crime. A person who kills a person suddenly very excited because of an illegal or highly insulting act of a person who injured him or a person close to him, shall be punished by deprivation of liberty for up to six years.
While the woman was waiting for the final verdict of the LAT, she served part of the prison sentence assigned to her by previous court decisions in the Panevėžys prison, because, after the then sentence came into force, she was brought to the place of execution of the sentence last summer and was imprisoned here until February of this year. The woman, who has shown exemplary behavior behind bars, was granted probation and released after being ordered to wear a collar.
“The most important thing was during these days to remove her collar, because when she was released with a collar, it was put on her, the woman had to be at home practically all the time, except for a few hours a day. This was done so that this decision of the Supreme Court would reach the Probation Service as soon as possible and remove the curse as soon as possible. On Friday, before the holidays, we managed to do that,” Karolis Barysas, the lawyer of the convicted woman, told Elta.
According to him, there may have been several cases in Lithuania when the court qualified the actions of the convicts as murder with great excitement.
“This is probably more a theoretical norm of the Criminal Code than a practical one. “There have been cases when the first-instance court gave a verdict of murder under great excitement, but the higher-instance courts overturned such a verdict,” the lawyer said.
According to him, in the case of Liudmila L., it was immediately apparent that this was not an everyday situation. The woman had never been convicted or punished by administrative procedure before, and worked until retirement.
“The woman lived with the abuser for many years, one day she can’t take it anymore and the murder happens. And that problem is raised in the world. What the Supreme Court of Lithuania has formed now will serve in the future as well. People live in an environment of violence and then commit such murders, there are certainly quite a few such cases in Lithuania. The state, the police knew that there was such a violent person, but no one took any measures, the roommate was convicted, pre-trial investigations, but he was not banned from approaching, nothing happened. The state does not take the steps it should take, and then charges the person who committed the crime with criminal procedure,” the lawyer told Elta.
The lawyer wrote in the cassation complaint to LAT that the institutions did not fulfill their duty to limit Dmitriy B.’s presence with Liudmila M., obliging him to live separately or not to get close to the woman, she was not provided with social or psychological assistance, as established in the legal acts regulating domestic violence.
“If such help had been provided, serious consequences could have been avoided. State institutions have not fulfilled their duties according to the law, and it is not permissible to punish a woman who was in a difficult situation, even though she committed a very serious crime, with a strict prison sentence, which would achieve only one goal – punishment,” the lawyer wrote. The Law on Protection from Domestic Violence entered into force in Lithuania in 2011.
The man died from a single stab wound to the chest
According to the criminal case, on February 11, 2020, in her apartment in Vilnius, during a conflict with her partner, Dmitrij B., Liudmila M. stabbed him once in the chest. The man died from this single injury.
The LAT extended panel of seven judges stated that the fact of systemic violence against Liudmila M. was clearly established in the case under consideration – between Dmitrijus B. and Liudmila M., the persons related to life bonds, there were tense mutual relations and constant conflicts, because of which they were invited police officers.
The conflicts, which started even five years ago, continued until the event, since 2015, when the cohabitants started living together.
In 2015, the police was called once due to domestic violence. The report states that Dmitrijus B. used physical violence against Lyudmila M., according to this incident, a pre-trial investigation was started for causing physical pain to a close relative or family member. It turned out that the woman had a broken rib.
In 2017, there were even 3 reports. In one case, Dmitry B. called the police because Lyudmila M. did not let him into the house. In another case, the report states that Dmitrij B. used physical violence against Lyudmila M., according to this incident a pre-trial investigation was started and it was concluded with a criminal order.
In the third case, the report stated that Dmitrij B. used physical violence against Lyudmila M., according to this incident, a pre-trial investigation was started and later terminated.
It was determined that there were 4 reports in 2018. Dmitriy B. was the speaker twice, he reported that Lyudmila M. does not let him into the house. Liudmila M. was the speaker twice. It was established that there was one report in 2019. According to LAT, systematic violence against the woman is also confirmed by the medical documents in the case about her physical injuries, as well as the testimony of witnesses.
According to LAT, the courts that previously examined the case of Liudmila M., having not properly assessed the above-mentioned circumstances, mistakenly interpreted Dmitriy B.’s illegal violent act – striking Liudmila M. with his palm – only as normal and unable to cause violent and emotional reactions to the woman.
The panel of judges, based on already formed court practice, indicated that the perpetrator’s state of high excitement is defined as a situation where, due to the illegal actions of the victim, the perpetrator’s consciousness is partially darkened, self-control is weakened, but the ability to understand and control his actions is not lost. Such a state can be caused by two types of situations – the perpetrator was suddenly very excited (was in a state of physiological affect) due to an unexpected, unexpected one-off act of the victim, or that act was the last of the previous non-one-off acts of a similar nature by the victim (an element of systemic violence).
The conclusion of the expert examination and the testimony of the experts established that the state of Liudmila M. did not meet the criteria of physiological affect, but she was in a state of expressed emotional excitement.
The LAT extended panel of seven judges found that during the incident, the woman from Vilnius was suddenly very excited about the violence used against her and, in response to another of her continuous previous acts of violence, immediately after receiving a blow to the face with her hand, she suddenly struck him once in the chest with a knife in her hand and thus killed him.
LAT is the only court of cassation to review the decisions of courts of general competence. The main purpose of the Court of Cassation is to ensure the uniform practice of courts of general competence in the state. Based on the laws regulating the process, the court of cassation, without going beyond the limits of the cassation appeal, verifies the appealed decisions from the aspect of application of the law.
2024-04-07 00:15:28