evidence

This appellate decision overruled the Berlin-Brandenburg Labor Court’s (Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg) 2008 decision 15 Sa 517/08 which held that the plaintiff was discriminated against in the course of her employment on the basis of her gender. She sued her employer in trial labor court in Berlin on the grounds of discrimination after a male colleague received a promotion to a management role that she had hoped for and for which she considered herself to be equally qualified.

The defendant was seized by police officers at his parents’ domicile for domestic violence against his wife. During the arrest, the defendant proceeded to insult the victim, threaten her, grab her by the hair and spit on her face. The defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment on the count of domestic violence. During his appeal, the defendant had three arguments for repealing his conviction.

The Trial Court sentenced the accused (AA) to four years in prison for aggravated sexual abuse of a minor (BB). AA and the mother of BB had a common law marriage. AA had been sexually abusing BB since she was eight years old and started raping her when she turned 11.  At age 14, BB became pregnant as a result of rape committed by AA.  BB’s mother discovered AA’s abuse and filed the criminal complaint.

The Trial Court sentenced the accused (AA) to 10 months with a suspended sentence for the crime of domestic violence against his wife (BB). AA intimidated and committed continuous acts of violence against BB. The Trial Court deemed the continuous and manipulative nature of this violence to be an aggravating circumstance. AA appealed, arguing that the Trial Court had improperly analyzed the evidence and that there was not enough evidence to convict him. The Appeals Court determined that the evidence on file should be analyzed in the context of the contentious relationship between AA and BB.

The appellant was charged with rape and alternatively with indecent assault. He was acquitted of rape but convicted of indecent assault and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment with hard labor. The complainant is a local brewer of an illicit beverage called "changaa," which she was arrested for on November 12, 2002. She offered a bribe to the arresting officers, but could not pay the price they demanded (5,000 KSH).

In the prosecution of an international human trafficking ring, B.D., a nightclub owner, was charged with Facilitating Prostitution in violation of Article 201 of the Provisional Criminal Code of Kosovo, for recruiting and organizing 16 Moldovan women for prostitution.  His co-defendants B.J., M.G., and S.Z.

The respondent had drunken intercourse with the complainant. He claimed that he mistook the complainant for his wife in his drunken stupor. She also mistook the respondent to be her husband during the intercourse. After intercourse, she realized that the respondent was not her husband.  The respondent also claimed that he did not know the complainant was not his wife until this moment. Consequently, the court acquitted the respondent of rape and criminal trespass.

Appellant burned down his house, along with his wife Angeladevi, and his daughters Malini and Anuradha. Angeladevi and Anuradha died as a result, and Malini survived. Angeladevi gave an oral dying declaration and Anuradha gave a written dying declaration to the effect that the Appellant (Angeladevi’s husband and Anuradha’s father) was the person who set them on fire. Angeladevi’s declaration was given to the medical personnel who attended to the woman at the hospital, and Anuradha’s declaration was given to the police.

BGH 4 StR 29/23 Germany v. Offender; German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof); decision dated August 17, 2023

Aggravated rape with weapons, which is punishable under Section 177 Para 7 No. 2 StGB (Strafgesetzbuch – StGB) with a prison sentence of no less than 3 years (sexual assault, rape), requires that the perpetrator carries an instrument to prevent or overcome the resistance of another person by force or threat of force.

Defendant appealed a judgment of the District Court, convicting him of one count of assault and battery on a household member. Defendant argued, among other things, that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the testimony of a convenience store clerk concerning statements the victim made to the clerk under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. Defendant had gone to a bar with his friends and returned around 2:00 a.m.