Criminal Liability, Detention Time Limits, and Evidence
Police detained Mr. Sargsyan at 22:00 on a Friday on suspicion of theft from a shop. He was placed in a holding facility and questioned the next morning without a lawyer present, despite requesting one. He made a statement admitting he 'took something.' At 14:00 on Sunday (40 hours after detention) he was still in custody, and no court had reviewed the lawfulness of his detention. The investigator argues that the weekend justifies the delay and that the confession is sufficient evidence. The alleged stolen goods were worth 45,000 AMD. Mr. Sargsyan has no prior record and says he intended to pay but left without doing so.
1. Assess the legality of the detention and the questioning.
Read the worked answer
Detention:
- Detention is subject to strict time limits and requires judicial review of lawfulness within the period set by the criminal procedure code. Being held 40 hours with no court review, justified only by 'the weekend,' is problematic - weekends do not suspend constitutional guarantees, and duty arrangements exist precisely for this.
- The detention must be documented with grounds and time; prolonged custody without judicial control is unlawful.
Questioning:
- Mr. Sargsyan requested a lawyer and was questioned without one. A statement obtained in violation of the right to counsel is inadmissible and cannot be used as the basis for a conviction.
- The 'confession' is therefore tainted and must be excluded.
2. Evaluate the investigator's claim that the confession is sufficient evidence.
Read the worked answer
Evaluation:
- A confession alone is never sufficient; it must be corroborated by other evidence (CCTV, witness testimony, recovery of goods). This guards against coercion and error.
- Here the confession was obtained without counsel despite a request, so it is inadmissible. The prosecution must build its case on independent evidence.
- The stated facts are thin: goods worth 45,000 AMD and an assertion of intent to pay. Whether the elements of theft (intent to appropriate) are met is a factual question requiring evidence, not assumption.
3. Outline the defense strategy and the procedural steps to take now.
Read the worked answer
Immediate steps:
- Demand release or immediate judicial review of the detention - the 40-hour custody without court control is the priority. File a complaint about unlawful detention.
- Challenge the admissibility of the statement taken without counsel; request its exclusion from the case file.
- Document the time of detention, the request for a lawyer, and the conditions of questioning.
Substantive defense:
- Contest the intent element: if he genuinely intended to pay and simply left, the required intent to unlawfully appropriate may be absent (possibly a civil/de minimis matter rather than theft).
- Emphasize no prior record and the low value in any proportionality or mitigation argument.
Outcome sought: release, exclusion of the tainted statement, and, absent independent evidence, termination of the case.