Decision On The Crime Of Drug Trafficking
T.C. JUDICIARY
10th Criminal Chamber
Main: 2016/2295
Decision: 2016/2077
Date of Decision: 30.06.2016
DRUG TRAFFICKING OFFENSE – CONTRARY TO THE DEFENSE OF THE DEFENDANT, WHO WAS DECIDED TO POSTPONE THE OPENING OF THE PUBLIC CASE FOR THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF DRUGS FOR USE, THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT AND DEFINITE EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS INVOLVED IN HEROIN
SUMMARY: According to the content of the incident report, the live identification report dated …………. and the CD images of the same date regarding the live identification of the defendant N…, the statements of Ö… Y.. and M..A..Y.. who were investigated separately for the crime of “possession of drugs for use” and other information and documents in the file. Y… and M..A..Y…’s statements at the investigation stage and other information and documents in the file; contrary to the defense of the defendant, against whom it was decided to “postpone the opening of the public case” for the crime of “possession of drugs for use” regarding the incident dated 06.11.2015; Ö… Y…, who was heard as a witness during the prosecution phase, or that he was involved in the crime of heroin seized from the other defendant N… or that he participated in the crime of the other defendant N…, without considering that there is no sufficient and definite evidence beyond the limits of doubt, it is inappropriate to decide to convict the defendant instead of acquitting him.
(5237 S. K. art. 188)
Case and Judgment: Upon the request of the defense counsel, the appellate review was conducted with a hearing for the defendants.
The file was examined.
Necessary Consideration was made:
A) Examination of the judgment of conviction against the defendant N..:
Since it is understood that the procedures in the trial process were carried out in accordance with the law, the evidence was shown and discussed in the reasoned decision, it was determined that the act was carried out by the defendant, the conscientious opinion was based on precise data in accordance with the documents and information in the file, and the type of crime and sanctions appropriate to the action were correctly determined; rejecting the objections of the defendant’s defense counsel and the defense at the hearing, the verdict is APPROVED, and the request for release of the defendant is rejected according to the amount of the sentence imposed and the period of detention,
B) Examination of the judgment of conviction against the defendant A.:
According to the content of the incident report, the live identification report dated 07.11.2015 and the CD images of the same date regarding the live identification of the defendant N…, the statements of Ö… Y.. and M..A..Y.. who were investigated separately for the crime of “possession of drugs for use” at the investigation stage and other information and documents in the file; according to the statements of Ö… Y… and M..A..Y…’s statements at the investigation stage and other information and documents in the file; contrary to the defense of the defendant, against whom it was decided to “postpone the opening of the public case” for the crime of “possession of drugs for use” regarding the incident dated 06.11.2015; Ö… Y…, who was heard as a witness during the prosecution phase, or that he was involved in the crime of heroin seized from the other defendant N…, or that he participated in the crime of the other defendant N…, without considering that there is no sufficient and definite evidence beyond the limits of doubt, to decide for the conviction of the defendant instead of his acquittal,
It was unanimously decided on 30.06.2016 to revoke the verdict, to release the defendant according to the reason for reversal, to write to the relevant Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office to ensure the release of the defendant if he is not convicted or arrested for another crime, since the appeal objections of the defendant’s defense counsel and his defense at the hearing are therefore appropriate.