Russian Federation
UDK 34 Право. Юридические науки
GRNTI 10.79 Уголовно-процессуальное право (уголовный процесс)
The article considers the rules for assessing the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings, highlights the cases of recognition of evidence inadmissible in criminal proceedings; identifies typical errors in assessing the admissibility of evidence in practice. The author analyzes existing approaches to defining the concept of admissibility and its criteria. Based on the analysis of investigative and judicial practice, the author draws conclusions about the rules for assessing the admissibility of evidence, which include: the presence of an appropriate subject authorized to carry out criminal proceedings; the source from which the evidentiary information was obtained; the investigative action, as a result of which the evidentiary information was obtained; as well as the absence of violations of the procedure (procedural order) for the production of a specific investigative action. The article provides a list of cases when the subject of obtaining evidence must be found to be improper in relation to each subject: the investigator, investigator, and judge conducting criminal proceedings. The author has identified significant errors in investigative and judicial practice, if they are admitted, the evidence must be considered inadmissible.
criminal proceedings, investigator, judge, evidence, admissibility of evidence, proof
1. Bryanskaya E. V. K voprosu o ponyatii dokazatel'stv i ih dopustimosti pri rassmotrenii ugolovnyh del v sude pervoy instancii // Sibirskiy yuridicheskiy vestnik. - 2016. - № 3 (74) - S. 110-113.
2. Terehin V. V. Dopustimost' ugolovno-processual'nyh dokazatel'stv: suschnost', soderzhanie, proishozhdenie // Vestnik Nizhegorodskoy akademii MVD Rossii. - 2012. - № 20 - S. 117-121.
3. Lupinskaya P. Voprosy ocenki dopustimosti dokazatel'stv v praktike Verhovnogo Suda RF / Dopustimost' dokazatel'stv v rossiyskom ugolovnom processe. - Rostov-na-Donu: Izd-vo SKAES, 2000. - S. 6-22.
4. Balakshin V. Sootnoshenie dopustimosti dokazatel'stv s ih otnosimost'yu i dostovernost'yu // Zakonnost'. - 2014. - № 3. - S. 8-14.
5. Demidova P. O., Teterina I. S. Dopustimost' dokazatel'stv: problema dvoynogo standarta / Problemy reformirovaniya rossiyskoy gosudarstvennosti : mater. HSh Vserossiyskoy konf. molodyh uchenyh (13-14 dekabrya 2018 goda, g. Ekaterinburg). - Ekaterinburg: OOO «Izdatel'stvo UMC UPI», 2018. - S. 167-170.
6. Lantuh N. V. Sovershenstvovanie instituta dopustimosti dokazatel'stv v celyah realizacii principa sostyazatel'nosti v rossiyskom ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve / Yuridicheskaya istina v ugolovnom processe : mater. Vseross. nauch.-prakt. konf. (16-17 marta 2018 g., g. Sankt-Peterburg) / pod red. K.B. Kalinovskogo, L.A. Zashlyapina. - Sankt-Peterburg: ID «Petropolis», 2018. - S. 111-116.
7. Sheyfer S. A., Kosheleva M. A. Sleduet li otkazyvat'sya ot dopustimosti kak neobhodimogo svoystva dokazatel'stv? // Ugolovnaya yusticiya. - 2013. - № 1. - S. 56-58.
8. Kostenko R. V. Vtoroe pravilo dopustimosti dokazatel'stv v rossiyskom ugolovnom processe // Obschestvo i pravo. - 2014. - № 4 (50). - S. 184-188.
9. Korolenko I. I., Nepranov R. G. Osnovaniya i posledstviya priznaniya dokazatel'stv nedopustimymi // Yurist'-Pravoved'. - 2015. - № 6 (73). - S. 40-45.
10. Hmyrov A. A., Rudenko A. V. O nekotoryh problemah dopustimosti dokazatel'stv po ugolovnym delam // Problemy ekonomiki i yuridicheskoy praktiki. - 2012. - № 6 .- S. 32-34.
