Analysis of Judgment No. 39482 of 2024: The Prohibition of Suggestive Questions in Witness Examination
The recent judgment no. 39482 of July 2, 2024, filed on October 28, 2024, provides significant insights regarding the examination of witnesses and the validity of evidence collected during the trial. The Court of Appeal of Turin addressed the delicate issue of suggestive questions, clarifying that their non-compliance does not result in either the inadmissibility or nullity of the evidence. This principle deserves thorough analysis, as it touches upon fundamental issues of Italian criminal procedural law.
The Prohibition of Suggestive Questions
The Court, presided over by G. Andreazza and rapporteur A. Di Stasi, established that while the prohibition of suggestive questions is an important rule to ensure the integrity of testimonies, the violation of this prohibition does not automatically lead to the inadmissibility of the collected evidence. In particular, the judgment highlights that:
- No automatic sanction is provided for the violation of Article 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Evidence can still be considered valid if it does not compromise the genuineness of the testimony.
- It is essential to evaluate on a case-by-case basis the impact of suggestive questions on the overall evidentiary outcome.
Prohibition of suggestive questions - Non-compliance - Inadmissibility or nullity - Exclusion - Reasons - Compromise of the genuineness of the testimony - Conditions. Regarding witness examination, the violation of the prohibition on suggestive questions does not lead to either the inadmissibility or nullity of the collected evidence, as such a sanction is not provided for by Article 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor can it be inferred from the provisions of Article 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (In motivation, the Court added that the aforementioned violation may, however, compromise the genuineness of the testimony if it has affected the overall evidentiary result in such a way as to render the collected material globally unsuitable for evaluation).
Implications of the Judgment
This judgment has important implications for criminal procedural law. It clarifies that although adherence to procedural rules is crucial, not all violations have direct effects on the validity of the evidence. Courts are therefore called upon to assess the concrete effect of suggestive questions on the testimony and the entire trial. This assessment must be carried out with consideration of the current regulations, such as Article 178 and Article 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Conclusions
In conclusion, judgment no. 39482 of 2024 represents an important step in Italian jurisprudence, reaffirming the need for careful and contextualized analysis of testimonial evidence. The interpretation provided by the Court of Appeal of Turin not only clarifies the limits of the prohibition on suggestive questions but also invites reflection on the balance between procedural correctness and the effectiveness of evidence in criminal proceedings. A thoughtful approach to these issues is essential to ensure that justice is not only pursued but also perceived as such.
