187 The case of Samuel Latomäki was a typical one where absolutio ab instantia came to be employed. Latomäki, together with two other witnesses, was accused of the killing of Constantin Niinistö. As for Latomäki, the charges were based on one witness’s testimony - against the other two, there was legal full proof. According to the eyewitness, Latomäki, as well, had hit the victim; the witness was not able to say, however, where the blow fallen on the victim’s body. The Lower Court (the Hundred Court of Ilmajoki June 23, 1849) and the High Court of Vaasa (August 31, 1849) condemned Latomäki “to the future” {absolutio ab instantia). The JDS, in turn, decided on a conditional acquittal.*^° In 1850, servant Sara Wikman and farmhand Emanuel Erämaa were charged with the murder of tenant farmer’s widowJohanna Wikman. To support the charges, the prosecutor presented several pieces of strong circumstantial evidence, but there were no eyewitnesses and the accused persistently denied the deed. The victimhad, however, made a will in favor of Sara Wikman, and the accused were going to marry’ each other. On the day of the crime, the accused had been absent from the house all day, but in light of the evidence, their errands seemed contrived. It appeared probable, moreover, that the victim had been killed in her bed in the morning. No one else could plausibly be suspected of the crime. All instances condemned the accused toabsolutio ab instantia (The Hundred Court of Lappfjärd, Tulv 7, 1850; the High Court of Vaasa, August 6, 1850; theJDS, January 23, 185!).«>' It is clear, thus, that, besides one eyewitness, the evidence for absolutio ab instantia could consist of only purely circumstantial evidence as long as it was deemed weighty enough. Much the same can be said about the next category, confessional imprisonment. Confessional Imprisonment Of the intermediary^ categories of decision, confessional imprisonment was the one most frequently used on the principal defendants. Of the 89 cases short of full proof in the era of legal proof, a high court was willing to recommend the use of confessional imprisonment to the emperor in 66 cases; in addition to that, the JDS motioned for confessional imprisonment in an additional ten cases (table A). In most cases of confessional imprisonment, a lower court — and sometimes a high court as well - had convicted the accused, after which the upper court changed the sentence to confessional imprisonment. There were 41 cases where a lower court had convicted, but where both appeals instances settled pag. 66/1835; and HvAÖnen, pag. 388/1845, in all of which a high court minority has voted for absolutio ah instantia against the majority deciding either for a confessional imprisonment or a conviction. »0 Pag. 354/1850. Pag. 379/1850.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=