Supreme Court final: 14 years “imprisonment” for intentionally causing death and bodily harm by speeding

Following a decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals, Husein Huysmenov will serve a 14-year “imprisonment” sentence for intentionally causing the death of Petar D. and bodily harm to Desislav D. while driving a car at a speed exceeding the maximum permitted distance and with an inappropriate distance. reported by the court.

With Decision No. 226/11.04.2024 in criminal case No. 141/2024, a three-member panel of the Supreme Court of Cassation (SC) upholds the decision from 08.12.2023 according to the Civil Code No. 82/2023 of the Court of Appeal – Burgas. The decision is final.

The case was initiated by Husein Hyusmenov’s appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeals – Burgas, which amended the sentence under the Criminal Code. No. 350/2022 of the District Court – Sliven. With it, the defendant was found guilty of the fact that on 21.11.2021 in the village of Krushare, commune. Sliven, while driving a car, violated art. 21, para. 1 of the Road Traffic Act (Road Traffic Act), as he drove the car at a speed of 85 km/h at a maximum permitted speed of 50 km/h, and Art. 23, para. 1 of the ZDvP, by driving with a technically inappropriate distance behind a car in which the victims were, and intentionally caused the death of Petar D. and medium bodily injuries to Desislav D., which is why he was sentenced to “imprisonment” for a term for 7 years and “deprivation of the right to drive motor vehicles” forever.

With the appellate decision, the sentence was amended, increasing the amount of the “imprisonment” penalty from 7 years to 14 years.

According to the three-member panel of the Supreme Court, the defendant’s appeal is groundless. Before the cassation instance, complaints, objections and arguments about significant violations of the procedural rules admitted by the appellate court, which, according to the defense, are expressed in the failure to fully discuss the totality of the evidence, led to the incorrect assumption that the defendant intended to commit suicide with the deceased victim, as well as an illegal refusal to admit forensic psychiatric and psychological expertise. The court of cassation points out that it was not established that the appellate court, when establishing the facts, made a wrong interpretation of the body of evidence or ignored evidentiary sources. The supreme judges are categorical that all the vocal evidence regarding the beginning of the conflict between the defendant and the deceased Peter D. have been subjected to a careful and thorough analysis, and their content has been interpreted correctly and according to its actual meaning. The appellate instance has analyzed the evidentiary sources in detail and, based on them, has reached the correct conclusion that Husein Huysmenov chased the victim’s car in order to deal with them himself, and not the other way around, as falsely alleged in the complaint.

The supreme judges accept as unfounded the objection of violation of the right of defense of Husein Huysmenov with the refusal to examine his mental state at the time of committing the act, stating reasons for the lack of grounds for doubting the mental fitness of the defendant, as well as for the fact that that the legislature did not provide for mitigated liability for the perpetrator in establishing that the same was in an affective state (as urged by the defense) which would require the court to examine this issue using expert knowledge. The cassation instance fully shares the considerations of the supervised court, that the evidence collected in the case establishes the good orientation of the defendant in the situation, the orderliness of his behavior and the lack of grounds to assume that he was disoriented or influenced by emotions controlling his actions, which to require the admission of an examination to clarify his mental state at that time.

The judicial panel of the Supreme Court does not agree with the arguments for incorrectness of the appellate court’s opinion that the accident was the result only of the admitted intentional violations of traffic rules by the defendant, as well as the objection that Denislav D.’s violation of the provision of Art. 42, para. 3 of the ZDvP, according to which the driver is obliged, when overtaking his vehicle, not to increase the speed and not to obstruct the overtaking. In their reasons, the supreme judges point out that the supervised court based its conclusions regarding the mechanism of the accident on the testimony of the direct eyewitnesses, the video recordings from the cameras located on the road and the conclusion of the triple auto technical expertise. According to the VKS, the mechanism of the accident established by the experts categorically refutes the plaintiff’s claim that the impact occurred when the defendant tried to overtake the victim’s car with his car, whose driver unlawfully obstructed him by increasing his speed. The expert opinion adopted by the supervised instance, in the absence of grounds for doubting the competence and objectivity of the experts, indicates that the impact occurred in the right lane, in which the victim’s car was moving, after a lateral transverse impact with the front right part of the car , driven by Husein Hyusmenov, in the rear left part of the victim’s car. According to the Supreme Judges, the appellate instance justified the conclusion of the experts that the accident was the result of intentional actions

to the defendant, who knowingly caused an impact process by not maintaining a distance between the two cars, and after this impact the driver of the victim’s car did not have the opportunity to exercise any control over his movement and maintain his stability.

The cassation panel accepts as lawful the judgment of the appellate court that in the actions of the defendant the possible intention is objectified, in which he carried out the act. The supreme judges point out that the intellectual moment of possible intent is present – as a sane, mentally healthy person and a professional driver, the defendant foresaw the socially dangerous consequences of the act, as well as the volitional moment – the perpetrator allowed (agreed with) their occurrence. The decision-making body of the Supreme Court perceives as correct and lawful, corresponding to the objectively established facts and based on the law and permanently established judicial practice, the detailed arguments in the appellate decision, with which the request to reclassify the act as one committed by carelessness – criminal presumptuousness was rejected, and the legal conclusions in the indicated sense, which, according to the Supreme Court of Justice, motivates the unfoundedness of the allegations of admitted violations of the substantive law in the qualification of the act as having been carried out in the form of guilt or possible intent.

Allegations of manifest injustice of the imposed punishment are also unfounded. The supreme judges accept that with the legally determined legal qualification of the criminal act, the appellate authority has imposed fair sanctions, fully complying with the type and amount of punishments provided by the legislator, the public danger of the act and the perpetrator, as well as all mitigating and aggravating factors circumstances.