RB 54

173 canted confessions, the legal practice was clear: it was up to the accused to show his confession had indeed been false. In practice it appears that the cancellations of confessions hardly ever succeeded. Once a confession was given, it was taken as the basis of the decision, whether recanted or not. In 1829, vagrant Hedvig Tammelin was accused in the Hundred Court of Maaria etc. for the murder of tenant farmer’s widow Catharina Sten. According to the evidence presented in the Hundred Court, UlrikaPankoff ancf Maria Elisabeth Larionoff had persuaded Tammelin to commit the crime. The lower court sentenced Tammelin to death (August 26, 1830), but in her appeal to the High Court of Turku Tammelin recanted, practically without explaining the cancellation, her confession. According to the High Court, the accusation was legally shown by way of a “voluntary confession of the accused.” (the High Court of Turku October 27, 1830; likewise the JDS, September 17, 1831; pag. 402/1830).-’° The Supporting Circumstances In capital cases, the Lawof 1734 requires that a confession be supported by circumstances.^’ The requirement demonstrates that confession in the systemof legal proof does not constitute a factor at the party’s disposal: in principle, the accused cannot dispose of the outcome of the trial by his or her confession. On the contrary, the criminal procedure is a entirely a state one, and it aims at material truth. Criminal procedure aimed at material truth, and since it was always, at least in principle, possible that the accused lied, a confession needed to be sustained by other, circumstantial evidence. In the homicide cases during the era of legal proof, the supporting circumstances, nevertheless, stand out very little as an independent factor. In most homicide cases, so much evidence — almost exclusively witness evidence - was taken that there was no difficulty in assigning some of it the role of “supporting circumstancial evidence.” Rarely, however, was it specified in the grounds of decisions which evidence was of that nature.33 ... genom egen frivillig bekännelse ...” Fur a similar treatment of a reeanted eonfession, see Sjöroos, pag. 238/1825; Rahieka, pag. 212/1825; Alho, pag. 35/1824; Mattsson 58/1825; Saxman, pag. 380/1830; Lilltarvonen, pag. 319/1830; Mäki, pag. 65/1835; Friberg and Sandell, pag. 79/1836; and Friberg pag. 267/1839. ’1 PS 17:36. ” In Sweden, this conception of confession was formulated already in the texts of Kloot and Nehrrnan. Inger 1995 pp. 118, 169, 313-315. See also Levy 1939 pp. 81-83. ” See Hakulinen, pag. 180/1830, where a woman was convicted in the hundred court for the killing of her five-year-old daughter. The court decision was based on Ekdahl’s confession alone. The appellate instances, however, found no circumstances to support the confession and changed the sentence to confessional imprisonment. See also Simonsson, pag. 305/1829; and Heikkilä, pag. 146/1824. 30 «

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=