The legality of the final judgment against the Nikšić citizen will not be questioned Ranko Radulović sentenced to two years and three months in prison for two criminal offenses - assault on an official in the performance of his official duties...
That position of the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office was also confirmed by the Supreme Court, rejecting as unfounded a proposal to raise a request for the protection of legality against the judgments of the Basic Court in Danilovgrad, that is, the High Court in Podgorica.
"In the process of making the contested decision, as well as in the decision itself, no significant violations of the provisions of the criminal procedure from Art. 386 paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure... Namely, the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office of Montenegro gave clear, complete and acceptable reasons for its conclusion that there is no place to raise a request for the protection of legality, and in the filed complaint, there is no concrete indication of the existence of significant violations of the provisions of the criminal procedure committed in the decision-making process", they state from the Supreme Court.
It is explained that the case file shows that the defendant was found guilty by the judgment of the Basic Court in Danilovgrad for the commission of two criminal acts of assault on an official in the performance of official duties and was sentenced to a single prison term of two years and three months.
It is added that by the judgment of the Higher Court in Podgorica, the appeals of the ODT in Podgorica and the defense attorney of the defendant were rejected as unfounded, that is, the first-instance verdict of May 25, 2021 was confirmed.
The judges then quote parts of that decision, which states that Radulović was in the Directorate for the Execution of Criminal Sanctions as a detained person and that, aware of his actions, he threatened to attack an official in the performance of his official duties - the prison police supervisor of the Investigation Prison. .
"After the injured party gave him an order to take him to the KBC for medical examinations, move away from the door of room no. 4 on the ground floor of the Investigative Prison, and to head towards the main exit, where the undertakers are waiting for him, sent threatening words to the injured party: 'Who are you to give me orders, I will not obey your orders, cowboy, you will see when I get out of here what you will do happens, see you outside, you'll remember me well, cowboy one'"...
It is alleged that he then threatened the same victim on the prison's walking circuit...
"In the way that, after the injured party ordered him to return to his room from the walking circle of the Investigation Prison, which was interrupted due to a violation of house rules, he addressed threatening words to the injured party: 'Just write those reports, you'll see how you will pass when I leave,'" added the Supreme Court's decision.
They state that the lower courts correctly concluded that the described actions of the defendant fulfilled the characteristics of two criminal offenses - assault on an official in the performance of official duties (Art. 376 para. 1 CC of Montenegro).
"Given the stated state of affairs, unfounded allegations were made in the defense attorney's appeal, which indicate that lower-level verdicts are based on a violation of the Criminal Code... and which try to show that the committed offense is not a criminal offense, because there were essentially no incriminated threats, on which, as further stated, both the accused and the injured MP, as well as the other mentioned witnesses, tried to point out, which is why his client, if the facts had been properly established, would have had to be acquitted. Therefore, these claims, which the defendant's defense attorney emphasizes in the appeal, essentially indicate that the factual situation was wrongly and incompletely determined, that is, that the actions taken by the defendant in the critical events were not actually threats to attack an official in the course of his official duties. actions".
They then cite the provisions of Article 438 paragraph 1 of the CPC, which, among other things, stipulate that a defendant who has been sentenced to one year or more in prison can ask the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office to file a request for the protection of legality against a final verdict, if the Criminal Code has been violated to the detriment of the defendant: "If the provisions of the criminal procedure from Article 386 paragraph 1 point 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the CPC have been violated, or in the second or third instance, a judge who had to recuse himself tried, or if the defendant was denied the right to use his language at the main trial or the trial before the second-instance court, as well as due to the violation of the defendant's right to defense and violation of the provisions of the criminal procedure in the appeal procedure, if that violation had an impact on the rendering of a correct verdict. Therefore, in accordance with the aforementioned provisions, the proposal of the defendant and his defense counsel to raise a request for the protection of legality cannot be submitted due to an incorrectly and incompletely established factual situation. Bearing in mind the above, the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office properly determined itself according to the reasons pointed out by the defendant's defense counsel in the proposal for raising the request, and made a legal and correct decision when it assessed that there are no reasons from Article 438 paragraph 1 of the CPC, based on which the defendant and his lawyer can propose raising a request for the protection of legality, based on which the final verdicts of the Basic Court in Danilovgrad K. no. 40/19 of 29 May 5 and the High Court in Podgorica Kž. no. 2023/499 of October 2021, 31, could refute".
They state that the factual situation cannot be refuted by a request for the protection of legality, nor can the defense initiate the raising of that extraordinary legal remedy on that basis.
"Whether the Criminal Code was properly applied in final judgments, i.e. whether it was applied to the detriment of the defendant, is assessed on the basis of whether the factual situation established by final verdicts, and which in the specific case was formulated in the sentence of the first-instance verdict, was correctly brought under the provision of the Criminal Code, which described the criminal offense for which the defendant was declared guilty, as well as on the basis of whether other provisions of the Criminal Code were properly applied, the application of which to a specific criminal-legal case comes into consideration. In the opinion of this court, the lower courts, based on the factual findings contained in the sentence of the first-instance verdict, correctly concluded that the actions of the defendant RR contain all the elements of the criminal offense of assault on an official in the performance of official duties from Art. 376 paragraph 1 of the CCCG. The reasons given by the first-instance court in its judgment regarding the existence of the two mentioned criminal acts and the defendant's guilt for them were reasonably accepted by the second-instance court. Namely, the factual description of the aforementioned criminal acts for which the defendant was declared guilty, in addition to the objective and subjective characteristics of the act, also contains the statement of facts and circumstances that are important for the proper application of the Criminal Code of Montenegro.
Bonus video:
