The Supreme Federal Court overturned a sentence that sentenced a woman and her brother to two months' suspended sentence after her husband filed a lawsuit against them accusing them of stealing movables from the marital home. The court decided to refer the case to the Court of Appeal again.
The defense of the woman and her brother (the first defendant) told the court that her husband knew that she and her brother would come to the house to take her personal belongings and allowed them to do so, noting that what she had taken was her personal belongings, refrigerator and movables.
The Public Prosecution referred the accused to trial for theft, demanding that they be punished.
The first instance court sentenced each of the defendants to two months' imprisonment for their charge. The Court of Appeal ruled that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on them for three years should be suspended from the date of the sentence.
The defendant did not bow to the verdict, and we objected to it. Their defense stated that "the referee erred in applying and interpreting the law and contradicting the papers. He condemned them despite the absence of the material element of the crime, the embezzlement, despite the knowledge of the complainant in the presence of his wife and brother to take personal And the lack of a corner of the shop as one of the elements of the crime of theft, and turned away from their request to call a witness to prove that the complainant is aware and satisfaction, which allowed them to take personal purposes, which is defective judgment and must be revoked ».
The Supreme Court of the Federal Supreme Court affirmed that it was decided that the crime of robbery required the theft of property belonging to third parties against the will of the owner in order to destroy it, and that criminal intent was achieved by knowing that the offender Owned by others without the consent of the owner with the intention of owning it.
She pointed out that the court is scheduled to convict the accused to extract the elements of the crime and the extent of availability and the contact of the accused, and takes evidence of the vision and insight, and discuss the defense of the accused.
She added that «the evidence from the papers, carried out by police investigations and the Public Prosecution, that the second defendant was the wife of the complainant, and that she paid that she had personal purposes in the marital home, and had obtained permission from the police to enable them to enter the house and the first defendant, By testimony of the witness, and testified before the Public Prosecution and before the Court of First Instance. The author was aware of this. I also claimed that the objects I took were owned by them. "
The Court concluded that "the judgment of appeal did not prejudice the occurrence of the case by sight and vision, which is flawed by the shortcomings and the violation of the right of defense, which requires revocation and referral."