Defense Petition Against the Prosecutor's Opinion

DEFENSE STATEMENT AGAINST THE PROSECUTION'S OPINION

CASE NUMBER: …/…
… TO THE HIGH CRIMINAL COURT
OF ANKARA

THE PROSECUTION'S
BY THE DEFENDANT AGAINST
: Name and Surname – (Turkish Republic Identity Number) – Address
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Lawyer's Name and Surname – Address – Telephone
INTERVENOR: Name and Surname – Address
REPRESENTATIVE: Lawyer's Name and Surname – Address
CRIME: Causing Death by Intentional Injury
SUBJECT: Submission of our statements against the opinion on the merits presented by the prosecution.

---

EXPLANATIONS

1- Deficiencies and Incorrect Assessments in the Prosecutor's Opinion

In the opinion submitted by the esteemed prosecutor's office, it is alleged that the defendant, my client, committed the crime of "causing death as a result of intentional injury" a premeditated and planned attack . However, upon careful examination of the case file, witness statements, and the sequence of events, it is clearly seen that my client acted in self-defense as a result of a sudden argument and without any premeditation.

As stated in the Supreme Court Criminal General Assembly's ruling dated April 17, 2018, numbered 2017/500 E., 2018/182 K.; " If the incident occurred as a result of a sudden argument or fight, it cannot be assumed that the perpetrator had prior planning and preparation. "

In this specific case, there is not a single piece of concrete evidence to support the prosecution's claim that my client had made prior preparations to attack the victim

---

2- Absence of Planning Element and Immediate Intent

The prosecution considered the wooden stick that the client picked up before the incident as evidence of "premeditation." However, on the day of the incident, as the argument escalated, the client picked up a piece of stick that was nearby purely as a defensive reflex, intending to protect himself against the other party's attack.

As emphasized in the decision of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation , numbered 2019/3925 E., 2020/2569 K .: “The fact that the perpetrator committed the attack as a result of momentary anger or an argument does not demonstrate the existence of premeditation. For premeditation to exist, the perpetrator must have calmly made a plan to commit the crime before the incident and acted in accordance with that plan.”

My client's conduct in this incident is entirely consistent with this precedent; there are no elements of premeditation or planned attack.

---

3- Errors in the Evidence Presented in the Prosecutor's Opinion

The prosecution presented the pocket knife that the client was carrying when he arrived at the scene as evidence of a planned attack. However, this pocket knife is a tool that the client uses daily in his work (woodworking) and always carries with him. The client did not carry the knife specifically with the intention of attacking the victim.

Witness statements (witness AB and witness CD) clearly indicate that my client was not involved in any threats or planning prior to the incident. The prosecution's assessment of "possible intent" lacks legal basis.

---

4- Conditions for Self-Defense and Fault

On the day of the incident, the victim attempted a physical assault and made threats against our client, and our client was the victim of the initial attack. that the limits of self-defense were not exceeded, as per Article 25/1 of the Turkish Penal Code .

In its decision numbered 2020/3846 E., 2021/1527 K., the 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation stated that; "The perpetrator's immediate reaction to an unjust attack against him should be considered within the scope of legitimate self-defense." In the concrete case, the client's reflexive action falls within the framework of legitimate self-defense.

---

5- Criminal Responsibility and Psychological State

My client was experiencing panic attacks and stress disorder at the time of the incident . The initial report prepared by the Forensic Medicine Institute only superficially assessed this issue. However, it is clear that my client's mental state directly influenced his behavior at the time of the incident. Therefore, it is necessary to refer my client to the 4th Specialization Board of the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute for a new and comprehensive report .

in the Supreme Court's 1st Criminal Chamber's decision numbered 2021/2458 E., 2021/5689 K., which reads,
"If there is doubt as to whether the defendant's psychological state at the time of the incident had a direct impact on criminal responsibility, a new expert report must be obtained,"
constitutes the legal basis for our request.

---

6- Request for Re-examination of Witnesses

There are witnesses whose statements were not considered in the prosecutor's opinion and whose testimonies are incomplete in the file. In particular, witnesses XY and ZK, is essential for uncovering the truth of the incident. Furthermore, we request that witnesses who gave incomplete and contradictory statements during the post-incident police investigation be confronted with each other.

---

CONCLUSION AND REQUEST

For the reasons explained above and which your court will consider ex officio;

• It should be accepted that the prosecutor's opinion is based on an incomplete investigation and contains erroneous assessments

• The request to reject the client's punishment for premeditated murder,

• Witnesses XY and ZK should be questioned again

• We request that the client be referred to the Forensic Medicine Institute's Specialized Department so that his criminal responsibility can be fully determined

• Considering self-defense and fault , we request an acquittal

Respectfully submitted.
…/…/…

Defendant's Counsel
Attorney Name and
Surname

                                                                                                     YAĞMUR YORULMAZ, LAW FACULTY STUDENT