Article 226/2: Bad Character and Prior Bad Acts Evidence

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 3885/2563 (2020)

   Prior judgments and pending counts a defendant asked to have sentences run consecutively can serve as evidence of a specific method or pattern of offending under Section 226/2 paragraph one (2).

   In a money-laundering conspiracy tied to a large drug network, the court admitted evidence of the defendants' other cases as showing the specific pattern of their conduct, and held it could be used to support proof of the offense charged under Section 226/2 paragraph one (2).

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 2789/2558 (2015)

   Evidence of a defendant's discreditable prior conduct that never led to any prosecution is inadmissible under Section 226/2 paragraph one, and its use weakens the prosecution's case.

   The prosecution pointed to the defendant's earlier car rental as bad conduct, but no case had ever been brought over it. The court held this was inadmissible discreditable-conduct evidence under Section 226/2 paragraph one, leaving the theft charge in reasonable doubt and the acquittal stood.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 1362/2561 (2018)

   Section 226/2 bars other-offense evidence only when used to prove the defendant committed the charged offense; where the charge itself is forging and using a forged document, the relevant proof is not caught by the rule.

   The defendants were charged with forging and using a forged will. The court held that Section 226/2 prohibits other-offense evidence only when offered to prove guilt of the charge, and the evidence relating to the forgery itself fell outside that prohibition.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.