Identifying an instrument of crime: assessing the evidence

Positions of the trial and appellate courts: the trial court found the defendant guilty and convicted him under Article 115(2)(7) and (12) and Article 296(4) of the Criminal Code. The appellate court amended the judgment and closed the proceedings on the charge under Article 115(2)(7) and (12), relying on Article 284(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code because sufficient evidence of guilt had not been established and the possibilities of obtaining it had been exhausted.

In the cassation appeal, the prosecutor argued that the appellate court had failed properly to assess the search record and video, during which a folding knife bearing traces described as “РБК” was found and seized and was subsequently identified as a butterfly knife; the expert examination of that knife, which found human blood with genetic characteristics matching the victim’s buccal epithelial samples; and the forensic medical examinations confirming the nature and mechanism of the injuries and the possibility that they had been caused, among other things, by a butterfly knife.

Position of the Criminal Cassation Court: the appellate ruling was set aside and a fresh appellate hearing was ordered.

Reasoning of the Criminal Cassation Court: the panel disagreed with the appellate court’s assertion that the butterfly knife could not be identified as the instrument that caused the victim’s injuries.

The appellate court had reasoned that the procedural documents did not clearly identify the instrument and that the experts had not established that the wounds were caused specifically by a butterfly knife. It considered that this prevented a finding that the defendant had used that object.

However, the description of the knife attributed to the defendant in various procedural documents as a black butterfly knife, a folding knife, a butterfly-type knife or a foldable knife may indicate shortcomings in recording its individual features. It does not automatically negate the existence of the knife, its seizure during this investigation or its possible connection with the incident.

The panel considered that a finding that the defendant’s use of a butterfly knife was not proved could not be based solely on shortcomings in identifying the seized object and the absence of a categorical expert opinion on the specific instrument causing the injuries, without a full assessment of the combined evidence and its interrelationships.