CRITERIA AND TYPES OF PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS AS GROUNDS FOR INADMISSIBLE OF AN EXPERT OPINION

Abstract

The article deals with the admissibility of an expert's report in criminal proceedings. Admissibility is defined as a characteristic of evidence which has certain requirements. The admissibility of the expert's report has its peculiarities, since the research is carried out by a special subject in a procedural form, the result of the examination is evidence as inferential knowledge. It has been proven that the admissibility of the expert's report is determined not only by the procedural form, but also by the content of the document. On the basis of the generalization of law enforcement practice, procedural violations, which are the basis for declaring an expert report inadmissible, are classified according to two criteria: in accord-ance with the stages of the examination (preparation and appointment of the examination, production of examination, use of the expert's conclusion in proof) and the severity of the consequences. Violations at the stage of preparation and appointment of an examination: procedural violations in the search for objects of expert study; the unknown origin of the comparison samples, the falsity of the objects submitted for examination; not an authorized subject for the appointment and production of an examination. Violations at the stage of production of an examination: non-compliance of the expert with the requirements for him as a partic-ipant in the process, the exit of the expert beyond the limits of competence; non-compliance with the form of the expert's report. Violations at the stage of using the expert's report in proof: non-disclosure by the investigator to the defense side of the expert's report at the end of the pre-trial investigation According to the criterion of severity of consequences, three groups of procedural violations of the admissibility of the expert's report are distinguished: 1) obvious violations, including significant violations that cannot be eliminated and cause the unconditional recognition of the expert's report as inadmissible; 2) conditional violations that can be elim-inated by procedural actions and allow the expert's report to be recognized as an admissible source of evidence; 3) insignificant violations that do not require elimination and allow the expert's report to be recognized as admissible, despite the fact that its individual compo-nents formally violate the procedural requirements.