185 Finland, someone could always be rendered suspicious when a homicide occurred. The local people, their habits and their relations of hate and love were known; on the other hand, an eye was certainly kept on wanderers as well. Therefore, it is understandable that often even in unclear cases, especially for serious criminality, a sufficient amount of evidence could usually be turned in, so that the accused would not be completely acquitted. There are, however, some acquittals, or cases in which the accused was acquitted at least by one of the three instances, in the material. It is typical of these cases that the acquitted was not the principal accused, but has instead been accused of complicity^^; in the material, the principal accused has never been acquitted in the last instance. Conditional Acquittals Like acquittals, conditional acquittals^^ mostly involved persons other than the principal accused (co-accused). How much evidence was necessary for a conditional acquittal? An exact answer cannot be given, for the lines between the categories are blurry. The space reserved for the category was between a complete acquittal and an absolutio ab instantia. If the requisite for absolutio ab instantia was not there, then conditional acquittal could be used.^^ According to PS 17:29, then, a half proof was needed. But what was a “half proof”? On the basis of the case material, it is, again, difficult to draw the line, espedaily, between a complete acquittal, a conditional acquittal, and absolutio ab instantia. There is, furthermore, no pattern as to whether different instances or courts in certain regions preferred one or the other category. There are, at any rate, not enough of these cases in the material to permit any such conclusion. In the material of the period of legal proof, there are only seven cases in which at least one of the instances has ended up in a complete acquittal.In five of these cases, at least one of the instances has decided for a conditional acquittaF^; none of these decisions entails a principal accused.^' In the material, Leino, pa^. 122/1851; Eliasdotter, pag. 307/1850; Smeds - Henriesdotter, pag. 247/1829; Matikain, pag. 191/1835; and Lcino, pag. 122/1851. There are, however, two acquittals ol the principal accused, but not for a reason of deficient evidence; sec Wass, pag. 180/1820; and Nisk, pag. 357/1829. In the decision the court stated that the accused “cannot be convicted of the crime” (“ej kan åt saken fällas”). See .also PS 17:29. Wass, pag. 180/1820; B.äckström, pag. 247/1829; Palander — Walli, pag. 422/1830; Matikain, pag. 191/1835; Petroff, pag. 136/1836; Pcldola, pag. 367/1850; and Forssell — Lcino, pag. 122/1851. All except for the case of Wass, pag. 180/1820; and Petroff, pag. 136/1836. The exception is again the case of Wass (pag. 180/1820), where the accused was acquitted in the first instance; however, for tather reasons than those related to evidence. The cases where a high court has settled for a conditional acquittal part of the co-accused have not always reached theJDS, but the cases involving the principal accused have.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=