Threats to commit murder or cause other grave harm to a person’s life are regulated by Article 119 of the Criminal Code of Russia.
Unlike assassination attempts, threats are not accompanied by physical force, but are intended to intimidate and disturb a state of calm. Therefore, when considering cases in court, all aspects and nuances of the crime are considered. Dear readers! To solve your specific problem, call the hotline or visit the website. It's free.
8 (800) 350-31-84
Most death threats are expressed verbally. Very rarely are third parties present who could become witnesses and confirm the words of the victim. Therefore, the implementation of the right to defense under Article 119 of the Criminal Code of Russia is associated with the need to record the crime and confirm the reality of the threats.
Establishing the fact of a crime
Consideration of cases of threats can only be initiated by the injured party. Third parties not directly involved in the case cannot file a complaint with the police, prosecutor's office or court. Regardless of which authority the application was submitted to, the victim will have to collect evidence of the very fact of the threats to confirm the crime.
Without their provision, the police and prosecutor's office may refuse to initiate a criminal case.
The following evidence may be accepted as evidence:
- Recordings of telephone or oral conversations or video recordings in which the attacker can be heard threatening the injured party.
- Screenshots or so-called acts of inspection of a page on the Internet, with or without notarization, if the communication took place in a chat or other communication sites where the criminal could use the function of deleting messages.
- Letters and other documentary evidence of threats.
- Statements of witnesses, if any.
Threats can be one-time or repeated. In the first case, it will be quite difficult to find witnesses, with the exception of crimes committed in public places. But the second option allows you to collect any type of evidence if you write a statement to the police in a timely manner, after receiving the first threat.
In this case, law enforcement officers can help collect evidence by installing listening, recording and other devices to record the crime.
Today the trial under Art. 119 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, but I cannot appear. What threatens me?
Good afternoon. Today the trial under Art. 119 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, but I cannot appear. What threatens me?
Lawyer Antonov A.P.
Good afternoon
According to Article 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the trial of a criminal case is carried out with the mandatory participation of the defendant, with the exception of cases provided for in parts four and five of this article. If the defendant fails to appear, the consideration of the criminal case must be postponed. The court has the right to bring a defendant who fails to appear without good reason, as well as apply or change a measure of restraint against him. A trial in the absence of the defendant may be allowed if, in a criminal case involving a crime of minor or medium gravity, the defendant requests that the criminal case be considered in his absence. In exceptional cases, judicial proceedings in criminal cases of grave and especially grave crimes may be carried out in the absence of a defendant who is located outside the territory of the Russian Federation and (or) avoids appearing in court, if this person has not been brought to justice in the territory of a foreign state for this criminal case. The participation of a defense attorney in the trial conducted in accordance with part five of this article is mandatory. A defense attorney is invited by the defendant. The defendant has the right to invite several defense attorneys. In the absence of a defense attorney invited by the defendant, the court takes measures to appoint a defense attorney. If the circumstances specified in part five of this article are eliminated, the sentence or ruling of the court, passed in absentia, at the request of the convicted person or his defense attorney, is canceled in the manner prescribed by Chapter 48 of this Code. In such a case, the trial is carried out as usual. According to Article 119 of the Criminal Code, threatening to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, if there were grounds to fear that this threat would be carried out, is punishable by compulsory labor for a term of up to four hundred eighty hours, or by restriction of liberty for a term of up to two years, or by forced labor for a term of up to two years. years, or arrest for a term of up to six months, or imprisonment for a term of up to two years. 2. The same act committed for reasons of political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity, or for reasons of hatred or enmity in relation to any social group, as well as in relation to a person or his relatives in connection with the performance of an official function by this person activity or performance of public duty - is punishable by forced labor for a term of up to five years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years or without it, or imprisonment for a term of up to five years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities. activities for a period of up to three years or without it. According to Article 15 of the Criminal Code, depending on the nature and degree of public danger, the acts provided for by this Code are divided into crimes of minor gravity, crimes of medium gravity, serious crimes and especially serious crimes. Crimes of minor gravity are recognized as intentional and careless acts, for the commission of which the maximum punishment provided for by this Code does not exceed three years of imprisonment. Crimes of average gravity are recognized as intentional acts, for the commission of which the maximum penalty provided for by this Code does not exceed five years of imprisonment, and careless acts, for the commission of which the maximum penalty provided for by this Code does not exceed ten years of imprisonment. Grave crimes are intentional acts, for the commission of which the maximum penalty provided for by this Code does not exceed ten years of imprisonment, and careless acts, for the commission of which the maximum penalty provided for by this Code does not exceed fifteen years of imprisonment. Particularly serious crimes are intentional acts, the commission of which is punishable by this Code in the form of imprisonment for a term of over ten years or a more severe punishment. Taking into account the actual circumstances of the crime and the degree of its public danger, the court has the right, in the presence of mitigating circumstances and in the absence of aggravating circumstances, to change the category of the crime to a less serious one, but not more than one category of crime, provided that for committing the crime specified in part three of this article, the convicted person is sentenced to a sentence not exceeding three years of imprisonment, or another more lenient punishment; for committing a crime specified in part four of this article, the convicted person is sentenced to a punishment not exceeding five years of imprisonment, or another more lenient punishment; for committing a crime specified in part five of this article, the convicted person is sentenced to a punishment not exceeding seven years of imprisonment. Thus, since the crimes provided for in Part 1 or 2 of Article 119 of the Criminal Code are not grave or especially grave, the case can be considered in your absence.
Sincerely, lawyer Anatoly Antonov, managing partner of the law firm Antonov and Partners.
Still have questions for your lawyer? Ask them right now here, or call us by phone in Moscow +7 (499) 288-34-32 or in Samara +7 (846) 212-99-71 (24 hours a day), or come to our office for a consultation (by pre-registration)!
Confirmation of the reality of threats
The reality of threats is understood as the belief or evidence for the victim that the promised can come true. Please note that what is important for the court is the victim’s attitude towards threats, and not whether the accused has evidence of no intention to carry out the threat.
The following facts can be used as evidence of the reality of threats to the victim:
- Documented facts, for example, a certificate from a psychoneurological clinic about a violation of the victim’s mental state (emotional depression, nervousness, stress, depression, insomnia, etc.).
- Use of any type of weapon, explosives or other means designed to intimidate the victim*.
- Documented facts of psychosomatic consequences caused by worries due to threats.
- The seriousness of the intentions voiced in the threats.
- Other facts that can confirm the reality of the perception of the threat by the victims. For example, testimony of witnesses confirming a nervous state or other signs of emotional depression.
*Please note that it will not matter to the court whether the offender used real weapons or just dummy ones. For example, when passing the verdict, the Primorsky City Court did not take into account that citizen Chudakovsky used a broken revolver from the Civil War to intimidate the victim.
This is because the injured party cannot know whether a real weapon capable of killing is being used or just a dummy one.
The Supreme Court explained without which signs one cannot be convicted of threatening to kill
July 29, 2021
A mutual conflict that has escalated into a fight can hardly be interpreted as a threat to kill, even if one of the fighters was scared, since his opponent is physically stronger, explains the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
A mandatory sign of a murder threat is its reality, and assessing the reality of the threat is a subjective and objective criterion, he reminds.
The crux of the matter
The highest authority examined the case of a resident of the Kurgan region, sentenced to 360 hours of compulsory labor for threatening to kill. According to the materials, the defendant and the victim beat each other during a mutual conflict, and both participants in the fight received injuries.
In the complaint, the lawyer indicated that the description of the objective side of the act consists of beatings and constitutes an administrative offense; his client did not express verbal threats of murder or causing grievous harm to the victim’s health, or other threatening actions that would give the victim reason to consider the threat real and fear its implementation, also didn't do it.
Position of the Armed Forces
Article 119 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for criminal liability for threats to kill or cause grievous bodily harm if there were grounds to fear that this threat would be carried out, reminds the Supreme Court.
“The subjective side of this crime is characterized by guilt in the form of direct intent. The perpetrator is aware of the social danger of his actions and wishes to express his intention to take the life or cause serious harm to the health of a specific person.”
, explains the highest authority.
From the verdict it is clear that the threat to kill was expressed in the fact that the defendant, during the conflict, with the intent to create a real threat to the life and health of the victim, deliberately struck him with his hands, a metal object and his feet. The victim perceived these actions as a real threat to his life and health and he had real reasons to fear its implementation, because the accused was aggressive and physically stronger.
However, at the court hearing, the convict explained that he had a conflict with the victim, which escalated into a mutual fight, during which they both struck each other, while he did not express any threats.
To substantiate the conclusion of guilt, the court referred in the verdict, including the expert’s opinion, on the presence of bodily injuries on the victims’ faces, which were caused by the action of a blunt object (objects) and did not cause harm to the victim’s health.
At the same time, the court ignored the expert’s conclusion about the presence of bodily injuries on the convict in the form of two bruises in the face, hemorrhage in the mucous membrane of the upper lip, bruising and post-traumatic swelling of the soft tissues of the first finger of the right hand, which do not cause harm to human health, the Supreme Court points out. .
Motivating the conclusion of guilt, the court indicated that a threat to kill can be expressed in any form and the absence of verbal threats does not exclude criminal liability under this article.
«Meanwhile, within the meaning of the criminal law, a threat to kill is a type of mental violence and can be expressed in any form, verbally, in writing, by gestures, by demonstration of weapons, etc. The content of a death threat is a statement of intent to take life; the threat is designed to intimidate the victim. An essential feature of such a threat is its reality.
Assessing the reality of a threat is a subjective and objective criterion. The subjective criterion is characterized by the intention of the perpetrator to carry out the threat and the victim’s perception of this threat as life-threatening. In this case, the threat must be obvious to the victim.
An objective criterion for assessing the reality of a threat is established taking into account the circumstances characterizing the situation in which the victim is threatened, the identity of the threat, the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator,”
— explains the Armed Forces.
Meanwhile, according to the circumstances established by the court, a conflict arose between the convicted and the victim on the basis of personal hostility.
At the same time, the court did not provide the motives on the basis of which it came to the conclusion that the convicted person had direct intent to commit a threat to kill, as well as the reality of the perception of such a threat by the victim.
Having examined the issue of the victim’s subjective perception of the reality of the threat of murder, the court did not properly examine and take into account all the factual circumstances of the case, the behavior of the convicted person and the victim, the personality of the accused, the nature of the relationship between the victim and the convicted person, the circumstances of the mutual conflict that occurred between them, the Supreme Court believes.
Therefore, he overturned the conviction and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
All news
Source:
RAPSI
Publications
A mutual conflict that has escalated into a fight can hardly be interpreted as a threat to kill, even if one of the fighters was scared, since his opponent is physically stronger, explains the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
A mandatory sign of a murder threat is its reality, and assessing the reality of the threat is a subjective and objective criterion, he reminds.
The crux of the matter
The highest authority examined the case of a resident of the Kurgan region, sentenced to 360 hours of compulsory labor for threatening to kill. According to the materials, the defendant and the victim beat each other during a mutual conflict, and both participants in the fight received injuries.
In the complaint, the lawyer indicated that the description of the objective side of the act consists of beatings and constitutes an administrative offense; his client did not express verbal threats of murder or causing grievous harm to the victim’s health, or other threatening actions that would give the victim reason to consider the threat real and fear its implementation, also didn't do it.
Position of the Armed Forces
Article 119 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for criminal liability for threats to kill or cause grievous bodily harm if there were grounds to fear that this threat would be carried out, reminds the Supreme Court.
“The subjective side of this crime is characterized by guilt in the form of direct intent. The culprit is aware of the social danger of his actions and wishes to express his intention to take the life or cause serious harm to the health of a specific person,” explains the highest authority.
From the verdict it is clear that the threat to kill was expressed in the fact that the defendant, during the conflict, with the intent to create a real threat to the life and health of the victim, deliberately struck him with his hands, a metal object and his feet. The victim perceived these actions as a real threat to his life and health and he had real reasons to fear its implementation, because the accused was aggressive and physically stronger.
However, at the court hearing, the convict explained that he had a conflict with the victim, which escalated into a mutual fight, during which they both struck each other, while he did not express any threats.
To substantiate the conclusion of guilt, the court referred in the verdict, including the expert’s opinion, on the presence of bodily injuries on the victims’ faces, which were caused by the action of a blunt object (objects) and did not cause harm to the victim’s health.
At the same time, the court ignored the expert’s conclusion about the presence of bodily injuries on the convict in the form of two bruises in the face, hemorrhage in the mucous membrane of the upper lip, bruising and post-traumatic swelling of the soft tissues of the first finger of the right hand, which do not cause harm to human health, the Supreme Court points out. .
Motivating the conclusion of guilt, the court indicated that a threat to kill can be expressed in any form and the absence of verbal threats does not exclude criminal liability under this article.
“Meanwhile, within the meaning of the criminal law, a threat to kill is a type of mental violence and can be expressed in any form, verbally, in writing, by gestures, by demonstration of weapons, etc. The content of a death threat is a statement of intent to take life; the threat is designed to intimidate the victim. An essential feature of such a threat is its reality.
Assessing the reality of a threat is a subjective and objective criterion. The subjective criterion is characterized by the intention of the perpetrator to carry out the threat and the victim’s perception of this threat as life-threatening. In this case, the threat must be obvious to the victim.
An objective criterion for assessing the reality of a threat is established taking into account the circumstances characterizing the situation in which the victim is threatened, the identity of the threat, the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator,” explains the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, according to the circumstances established by the court, a conflict arose between the convicted and the victim on the basis of personal hostility.
At the same time, the court did not provide the motives on the basis of which it came to the conclusion that the convicted person had direct intent to commit a threat to kill, as well as the reality of the perception of such a threat by the victim.
Having examined the issue of the victim’s subjective perception of the reality of the threat of murder, the court did not properly examine and take into account all the factual circumstances of the case, the behavior of the convicted person and the victim, the personality of the accused, the nature of the relationship between the victim and the convicted person, the circumstances of the mutual conflict that occurred between them, the Supreme Court believes.
Therefore, he overturned the conviction and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Alice Fox
Is a peaceful solution to the matter possible? Article 119 part 1
Good afternoon, dear Yuri! Regarding the essence of the situation you described, I explain the following: The disposition of part one of Article 119 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for liability for the threat of murder or infliction of grievous bodily harm if there were grounds to fear that this threat would be carried out. That is, the victim must perceive the reality of the threat of causing death or serious harm to his health. At the same time, the subjective perception of the victim that the latter considered the threat to his life or health to be realistically feasible is not enough, since it is necessary to establish under what circumstances there were grounds to fear the implementation of this threat.
Article 119 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not fall into the category of serious crimes - Art. 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation .
If we talk about “global”, then everything depends on the following provisions of the law:
Article 25 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for the termination of a private prosecution case through reconciliation of the parties if the accused has committed a crime of minor or medium gravity, but at the same time, Article 76 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation stipulates that in this case the person must make amends and that the crime is of medium or light gravity and was committed for the first time.
Thus, the case can be dismissed only in relation to a person who has committed a crime for the first time, that is, who has not previously been convicted.
Moreover, an application for reconciliation of the parties can be filed both during the preliminary investigation and in court. Termination of a case is similar: both during the preliminary investigation and in court. However, the investigation (inquiry), as practice shows, often does not do this, leaving the right to dismiss the case to the court.
You have the right to file a civil claim during the preliminary investigation, in which you indicate the amount of the claim (expenses incurred + moral damage). This right is granted to you by Article 44 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to paragraph 2 of which: A civil claim may be brought after the initiation of a criminal case and before the end of the judicial investigation during the hearing of this criminal case in the court of first instance. When filing a civil claim, the civil plaintiff is exempt from paying state fees.
The same article 44 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for your rights as a civil plaintiff.
That is, to terminate the case in accordance with Art. 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, it is necessary that there be reconciliation with you as a victim and repayment of the damage caused to you, and the accused should not have previously been convicted.
In accordance with Article 76 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: A person who has committed a crime of minor or medium gravity for the first time may be released from criminal liability if he has reconciled with the victim and made amends for the harm caused to the victim .
If you have any additional questions, please contact us, including by email. mail I would be grateful for your feedback and rating of the answer. All the best!
