Renewal of the Trial and Inadmissibility of Testimonial Statements: Analysis of Judgment No. 39596 of 2024
The recent judgment No. 39596 of September 12, 2024, published by the Court of Cassation, provides significant insights into the procedural dynamics related to the renewal of the trial and the inadmissibility of testimonial evidence. The Court declared inadmissible a ground of appeal that contested, for the first time in the legitimacy phase, the inadmissibility of testimonial statements acquired without the consent of the parties, in a context of change of the judge.
The Context of the Judgment
The main issue addressed by the Court concerns the possibility of raising objections to the inadmissibility of evidence at a later time than their acquisition. In particular, the judgment clarifies that, in the event of the renewal of the trial due to the change of the judge, the objection of inadmissibility of testimonial statements must be raised in the first useful act, as provided by Articles 606 and 521 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Maxims of the Judgment
Renewal of the trial due to the change of the judge - Testimonial statements acquired without the consent of the parties - Objection of inadmissibility - Deduction for the first time in the legitimacy phase - Admissibility - Exclusion - Reasons. In the context of the legitimacy judgment, the ground of appeal is inadmissible when, in the case of the renewal of the trial due to the change of the individual judge, the inadmissibility of testimonial statements acquired in the trial without the consent of the parties is raised for the first time, as this is an objection that cannot be raised at any stage and degree of the process, and must be asserted with the first act in which it is possible to do so.
Implications of the Judgment
This decision of the Court of Cassation emphasizes the importance of proper management of procedural objections and the obligation of timeliness in their presentation. The Court, also recalling previous jurisprudence, clarifies that objections related to the inadmissibility of evidence must be raised in the manner and within the timeframes established by law, otherwise they risk being precluded.
- Necessity to raise the inadmissibility in the first useful act.
- Relevance of objections at any stage and degree of the process.
- Importance of the consent of the parties in the acquisition of testimonial evidence.
