Renewal of the Hearing 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, offers significant insights into understanding the procedural dynamics related to the renewal of the hearing and the inadmissibility of testimonial evidence. The Court declared a ground for appeal inadmissible, which contested, for the first time at the appellate level, the inadmissibility of testimonial statements acquired without the consent of the parties, in a context of a change of judge.

Context of the Judgment

The main issue addressed by the Court concerns the possibility of raising objections of inadmissibility of evidence at a later stage than their acquisition. In particular, the judgment clarifies that, in case of renewal of the hearing due to a change of judge, the objection of inadmissibility of testimonial statements must be raised at the first available opportunity, as provided for by Articles 606 and 521 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Holding of the Judgment

Renewal of the hearing due to a change of judge - Testimonial statements acquired without the consent of the parties - Objection of inadmissibility - Raising for the first time at the appellate level - Admissibility - Exclusion - Reasons. In the context of appellate proceedings, a ground for appeal is inadmissible where, in the case of renewal of the hearing due to a change in the presiding judge, the inadmissibility of testimonial statements acquired during the hearing in the absence of the parties' consent is raised for the first time. This is because such a grievance is not subject to review at all stages and levels of the proceedings and must be objected to at the first opportunity available.

Implications of the Judgment

This decision by the Court of Cassation underscores the importance of proper management of procedural objections and the obligation of timeliness in their submission. The Court, also referencing previous case law, clarifies that grievances concerning the inadmissibility of evidence must be raised in the manner and within the timeframes established by law, otherwise they risk being precluded.

• Necessity of objecting to inadmissibility at the first available opportunity.
• Reviewability of grievances at all stages and levels of the proceedings.
• Importance of the parties' consent in the acquisition of testimonial evidence.