The defendant's declaration of will and the differentiation of judicial procedure forms

In legally prescribed circumstances, the will of a person subject to criminal prosecution, when expressed in the prescribed manner, can alter the trajectory of criminal proceedings, effectively changing the criminal procedural form. From this perspective, the article examines specific procedures within existing frameworks. These include: the transition from the general order of inquiry to its abbreviated form (and vice versa), the exercise of the accused's right to a trial by jury, the special judicial procedure, and the termination of a criminal case due to the decriminalization of an act. It is acknowledged that recent decades have witnessed an evolution in criminal procedure-a shift toward recognizing the individuality of the accused and accounting for their opinion, which in itself acts as a factor in differentiating procedural forms. A critical analysis of existing regulations governing court proceedings in cases investigated under the abbreviated inquiry format, coupled with a lack of uniform application in practice, justifies the need to legally mandate the judicial examination of evidence cited in the indictment. The article formulates proposals for improving legal regulation and expanding the use of non-ordinary proceedings initiated by the accused. These include broadening the jurisdiction of jury trials to cover cases under Parts 2-6 of Article 264 of the Criminal Code and cases of economic crimes committed in the IT sphere. Furthermore, it advocates for the possibility of an immediate transition from the general trial procedure to the special procedure upon a corresponding motion by the defendant during the preparatory part of the court hearing, provided all other legal requirements are met. An analysis of decriminalization as a relatively independent sub-ground for terminating a case due to the absence of a crime-and the differences in considering the accused's opinion during its application in pre-trial versus judicial proceedings, which necessitate a complex procedural mechanism-suggests the need to establish decriminalization as an independent ground for termination. This would allow for a unified application procedure regardless of the procedural stage, given that the accused holds the same procedural status both during the investigation and in court, and thus the legal response and consideration of their opinion should be consistent. The author declares no conflicts of interests.

Keywords

Authors

References