Acquittal in Criminal Cases — Conditions, Types and Consequences
Acquittal in Criminal Cases — Conditions, Types and Consequences
An acquittal verdict is a decision in criminal proceedings that rules the offense has not been proven against the defendant or that the defendant is innocent. Article 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (CPC) regulates in detail the circumstances under which an acquittal verdict may be rendered. An acquittal verdict constitutes a registration of the defendant's innocence and is the most favorable outcome of criminal proceedings. The right to compensation of an acquitted defendant is additionally safeguarded within the framework of CPC Articles 141-144. This article comprehensively examines the legal basis of acquittal verdicts, types of acquittal, conditions for acquittal, finalization of acquittal decisions, the right to compensation upon acquittal, and practical issues encountered in application.
What Is an Acquittal Verdict and When Is It Rendered?
An acquittal verdict is the type of judgment regulated in CPC Art. 223/2 and rendered to the effect that the defendant is not found guilty. An acquittal verdict means that the criminal proceedings have concluded in favor of the defendant, indicating that the defendant will not be subjected to any criminal sanction. The acquittal verdict constitutes one of the two fundamental outcomes of criminal proceedings, as the opposite of a conviction.
Pursuant to CPC Art. 223/2, an acquittal verdict is rendered in the following cases:
| Reason for Acquittal | Legal Basis | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| The charged act is not defined as a crime in law | CPC Art. 223/2-a | The act is not regulated as a crime in criminal law |
| It is established that the charged offense was not committed by the defendant | CPC Art. 223/2-b | It is proven that the defendant did not commit the offense |
| The perpetrator lacks intent or negligence regarding the charged offense | CPC Art. 223/2-c | The mental element is absent |
| It is not established that the charged offense was committed by the defendant | CPC Art. 223/2-e | Insufficient evidence found (benefit of the doubt to the defendant) |
| It is established that the charged act was not committed unlawfully | CPC Art. 223/2-d | A justification ground exists (self-defense, etc.) |
Each of these acquittal reasons may produce different legal consequences. In particular, the distinction between establishing that the defendant did not commit the offense and failing to establish that the offense was committed creates important differences in practice.
Types of Acquittal and Differences Between Them
The Charged Act Is Not Defined as a Crime in Law (CPC Art. 223/2-a)
This type of acquittal is rendered when the act attributed to the defendant is not regulated as a crime in criminal laws. Pursuant to the principle of legality (nullum crimen sine lege), no one can be punished for an act that is not explicitly defined as a crime in law. This principle is safeguarded in Article 38 of the Constitution and TCC Art. 2.
Examples of this type of acquittal are encountered in cases filed based on repealed legal provisions or in situations where the act does not constitute a crime. Additionally, this type of acquittal may apply when an act ceases to be a crime as a result of legislative amendment.
It Is Established That the Charged Offense Was Not Committed by the Defendant (CPC Art. 223/2-b)
This type of acquittal is rendered when evidence conclusively proves that the defendant did not commit the offense. This is the strongest type of acquittal, as the defendant's innocence has been fully established. For example, proving that the defendant was at another location (alibi) at the time the offense was committed or determining that the offense was committed by another person leads to this type of acquittal.
In this type of acquittal, the defendant's innocence has been established beyond any doubt. Therefore, this acquittal verdict produces the strongest result also in terms of protecting the defendant's reputation in society.
The Perpetrator Lacks Intent or Negligence Regarding the Charged Offense (CPC Art. 223/2-c)
In criminal law, the act must be committed with intent or negligence for an offense to be constituted. Even if the defendant is found to have committed the act, an acquittal verdict is rendered if there is no intent or negligence. For example, an acquittal verdict may be rendered due to lack of mental element if the defendant did not know they were committing a crime due to mistake or if the consequence was not foreseeable.
Intent regulated in TCC Art. 21 and negligence regulated in TCC Art. 22 constitute the mental elements of an offense. The absence of these elements means that the defendant bears no criminal responsibility even if they committed the act.
It Is Not Established That the Charged Offense Was Committed by the Defendant (CPC Art. 223/2-e)
This type of acquittal is the most frequently encountered type in practice and is a direct application of the principle of "benefit of the doubt to the defendant" (in dubio pro reo). If the court cannot conclusively determine with existing evidence whether the defendant committed the offense, it decides in favor of the defendant and renders an acquittal verdict.
The principle of benefit of the doubt to the defendant is one of the most fundamental principles of criminal procedure. Pursuant to this principle, the burden of conclusively proving the defendant's guilt lies with the prosecution (public prosecutor's office). If the prosecution fails to fulfill this obligation — that is, if it cannot prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense — an acquittal verdict must be rendered.
The difference between this type of acquittal and CPC Art. 223/2-b is as follows: in CPC Art. 223/2-b, the defendant's innocence has been conclusively proven; in CPC Art. 223/2-e, the defendant's guilt has not been sufficiently proven. An acquittal verdict is rendered in both cases, but their legal qualifications differ.
It Is Established That the Charged Act Was Not Committed Unlawfully (CPC Art. 223/2-d)
This type of acquittal is rendered when the defendant is found to have committed the act, but one of the justification grounds exists. The justification grounds regulated in TCC Art. 24-26 are as follows: law and the order of a superior (TCC Art. 24), self-defense (TCC Art. 25/1), necessity (TCC Art. 25/2), exercise of a right (TCC Art. 26/1), and consent of the victim (TCC Art. 26/2).
The most common justification ground is self-defense. If the defendant committed the act out of necessity to repel an unjust attack directed at themselves or another, which has occurred, is certain to occur, or certain to be repeated, in a manner proportionate to the attack according to the circumstances, no penalty is imposed. In this case, an acquittal verdict is rendered.
The Reasoning of the Acquittal Verdict
Pursuant to CPC Art. 230, court decisions must be reasoned. The reasoning of an acquittal verdict must clearly set forth the basis for the acquittal. An acquittal verdict without reasoning constitutes grounds for reversal. The reasoning of the acquittal verdict should include the following: the prosecution's claims, the defense's statements, evaluation of the collected evidence, the legal basis for the acquittal, and how the court reached this conclusion.
The Court of Cassation meticulously reviews the reasoning of acquittal verdicts. In particular, acquittal verdicts where evidence has not been sufficiently discussed, witness statements have not been evaluated, or expert reports have been disregarded may be reversed. The grounding of reasoning in legal and factual findings is of great importance for the soundness of the acquittal verdict.
Right to Compensation Upon Acquittal (CPC Art. 141-144)
An acquitted defendant may claim compensation for damages suffered due to protective measures under certain conditions. CPC Articles 141-144 regulate the right to compensation due to protective measures. This regulation aims to compensate the damages of persons who were unjustly detained, taken into custody, or subjected to other protective measures.
Pursuant to CPC Art. 141/1, the cases in which compensation may be claimed are as follows:
| Reason for Compensation | Legal Basis | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Person who is acquitted after being lawfully apprehended or detained | CPC Art. 141/1-e | Acquittal after detention |
| Person who is unlawfully apprehended or detained | CPC Art. 141/1-a | Unlawful apprehension/detention |
| Person apprehended or detained without being reminded of legal rights | CPC Art. 141/1-b | Failure to notify of rights |
| Person subjected to unlawful seizure or search | CPC Art. 141/1-j | Unlawful seizure/search |
| Person not brought before a judicial authority within a reasonable time | CPC Art. 141/1-d | Violation of right to trial within reasonable time |
In the compensation lawsuit, both material compensation and moral compensation may be claimed together. Material compensation covers income loss, job loss, professional damages, and similar material losses suffered during the period of detention or custody. Moral compensation covers moral damages such as psychological trauma, loss of reputation, and social stigmatization experienced due to detention or custody.
Conditions of the Compensation Lawsuit
Pursuant to CPC Art. 142/1, the compensation lawsuit must be filed within three months from the finalization of the acquittal decision or the decision of non-prosecution, and in any case within one year from the notification of the finalization of the decisions or judgments to the relevant person. These periods are of a preclusive nature, and the right to claim compensation lapses upon their expiration [TO BE VERIFIED].
The compensation lawsuit is filed at the heavy criminal court in the place where the injured person resides. The case is conducted against the Treasury, as it is the state that applies the protective measures and the compensation obligation belongs to the state. Although there is no obligation to retain an attorney for filing the case, obtaining legal support is recommended.
Determination of Compensation Amount
The compensation amount is determined by the court according to the circumstances of the specific case. In material compensation, concrete damages such as income loss, job loss, treatment expenses, and similar damages suffered during detention or custody are calculated. In moral compensation, factors such as the psychological trauma experienced, social stigmatization, deterioration in family relationships, and loss of reputation are evaluated.
According to Court of Cassation precedents, when determining the moral compensation amount, criteria such as the duration of detention, the social and economic status of the defendant, the nature of the charges, and their reflection in public opinion are taken into consideration. The moral compensation amount should be at a level that does not lead to enrichment but that alleviates the suffering to a certain extent.
Finalization of the Acquittal Verdict
The acquittal verdict becomes final when no appeal is filed or when all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. The public prosecutor may file an appeal or cassation appeal against the acquittal verdict. If an appeal is filed, the acquittal verdict does not become final and remains pending until the appellate court review is concluded.
The appeal is filed with the regional court of justice pursuant to CPC Art. 272. The regional court of justice examines the acquittal verdict from both legal and factual perspectives and may affirm, reverse, or correct and affirm it. The cassation appeal is filed with the Court of Cassation pursuant to CPC Art. 286 and only a review of legality is conducted; no factual evaluation is made.
Upon finalization of the acquittal verdict, all protective measures against the defendant are lifted. Detention ends, judicial control obligations are removed, seizure orders are lifted, and seized property belonging to the defendant is returned. A finalized acquittal verdict prevents the defendant from being retried for the same act (ne bis in idem principle).
Acquittal Verdict and Criminal Record
An acquittal verdict is not recorded in the criminal record. No record appears on the criminal record certificate of an acquitted defendant. This is one of the most important practical consequences of acquittal, as the acquitted person does not face any disadvantage in terms of criminal records in job applications and entry to public service.
However, until the acquittal verdict becomes final, information relating to protective measures applied during the investigation or prosecution stage may be recorded in certain systems. Upon finalization of the acquittal verdict, these records are also deleted or updated [TO BE VERIFIED].
Effect of the Acquittal Verdict on Civil Cases
An acquittal verdict rendered in a criminal case may not be binding for civil cases (compensation cases). Pursuant to Art. 74 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, the judge evaluates the questions of whether the tortfeasor was at fault, whether they had the capacity of discernment, and whether the condition of unlawfulness was fulfilled according to the provisions of obligations law, not according to the provisions of criminal law relating to liability.
The practical consequence of this regulation is as follows: a civil case may be filed against a defendant acquitted in a criminal case, and the civil court may not be bound by the criminal court's acquittal verdict. However, the factual findings established in the criminal court's finalized acquittal verdict also bind the civil judge. That is, if the criminal court has established that "the defendant did not commit this act," the civil judge also takes this finding as a basis.
The most common example of a civil case being filed against an acquitted defendant is seen in negligent injury offenses. Even if the defendant is acquitted in the criminal case on the grounds that negligence was not found, they may be ordered to pay compensation upon being found at fault in the sense of obligations law. This situation arises from the fact that the concept of fault in criminal law and the concept of fault in obligations law are subject to different criteria.
Acquittal Verdict and the Presumption of Innocence
The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle guaranteed in Article 38/4 of the Constitution and Article 6/2 of the ECHR, providing that everyone shall be presumed innocent until their guilt has been established by a final court decision. An acquittal verdict is a concrete outcome of the presumption of innocence; when the prosecution cannot prove the defendant's guilt, an acquittal verdict must be rendered.
The presumption of innocence continues its effect not only during the trial process but also after the acquittal verdict. Treating an acquitted person as guilty in society or in the media constitutes a violation of the presumption of innocence. In ECtHR decisions, it has been found that statements made by public officials regarding a person's guilt after an acquittal verdict violate the presumption of innocence.
Legal Remedies Against the Acquittal Verdict
The legal remedies available against an acquittal verdict are appeal and cassation appeal. The public prosecutor may file an appeal against the acquittal verdict, whether in favor of or against the defendant. The joining party (intervenor) may also file an appeal against the acquittal verdict.
The appeal must be filed within seven days from the announcement or notification of the decision (CPC Art. 273/1). In the appeal, it may be asserted that the acquittal verdict is contrary to law or factual findings. The regional court of justice has the authority to examine the file from both legal and factual perspectives.
The cassation appeal is filed with the Court of Cassation against the decision of the regional court of justice. In cassation, only a review of legality is conducted; no factual evaluation is made. As a result of cassation, the Court of Cassation may affirm, reverse, or correct and affirm the decision.
Acquittal Verdict and the Right of Joinder (Intervention)
The person harmed by the crime has the right to join (intervene in) the public prosecution during the prosecution stage pursuant to CPC Art. 237. The joining party may appeal against the acquittal verdict. The joining party's appeal prevents the acquittal verdict from becoming final.
The joining party's objection to the acquittal verdict is particularly important for protecting the rights of the person harmed by the crime. The joining party may assert that the acquittal verdict is contrary to law, that the evidence was not sufficiently evaluated, or that the factual findings were erroneously determined. The regional court of justice may re-examine the file upon the joining party's application and may affirm or reverse the acquittal verdict.
Situation of Acquitted Public Officials
Special consequences arise when an acquittal verdict is rendered in criminal cases filed against public officials. Pursuant to the Civil Servants Law No. 657 and related legislation, a public official who has been suspended from duty due to a criminal investigation or prosecution is reinstated upon finalization of the acquittal verdict.
Financial rights that were not fully paid during the period of suspension are paid to the public official upon finalization of the acquittal verdict. During the suspension period, only a certain proportion of the salary is paid, and in case of acquittal, the shortfall is refunded together with interest [TO BE VERIFIED].
The situation of the acquitted public official in terms of disciplinary investigation must also be evaluated separately. Acquittal in the criminal case does not automatically terminate the disciplinary investigation. Disciplinary law and criminal law operate under different rules, and a disciplinary penalty may be imposed on a public official acquitted in a criminal case. However, the factual findings of the criminal court are also taken into consideration in the disciplinary investigation.
Difference Between Acquittal Verdict and Dismissal Decision
The acquittal verdict and the dismissal decision (CPC Art. 223/8) are decisions of different legal natures that are confused with each other. The acquittal verdict is a decision ruling on the defendant's innocence or that the offense has not been established. The dismissal decision is the termination of the case for procedural law reasons such as statute of limitations, withdrawal of complaint, advance payment, mediation, or death of the defendant.
The practical importance of this distinction is as follows: while the acquittal verdict constitutes a registration of the defendant's innocence, the dismissal decision does not contain a finding as to whether the defendant is guilty or innocent. In the dismissal decision, it is merely stated that continuation of the case is not possible from a procedural law perspective. Therefore, the acquittal verdict is a much more favorable outcome for the defendant compared to the dismissal decision.
Difference Between Acquittal Verdict and Decision of No Need for Punishment
A decision of no need for punishment (CPC Art. 223/3-4) is a different type of judgment from the acquittal verdict. While in the acquittal verdict the defendant is found to be innocent or the offense is found not to have been established, in the decision of no need for punishment the defendant is found to have committed the act, but it is envisaged that no punishment be imposed for legal or factual reasons.
The decision of no need for punishment is rendered in the following cases: minority (TCC Art. 31), mental illness (TCC Art. 32), deafness and muteness (TCC Art. 33), necessity, commission of a crime under the influence of coercion and threat, and mistake (TCC Art. 30) — grounds that eliminate or reduce culpability. In this type of decision, the defendant has committed the offense but bears no criminal responsibility.
Practical Issues Encountered After Acquittal
Despite the rendering of an acquittal verdict, various issues may be encountered in practice. Chief among these is the social stigmatization of the acquitted person. Particularly in cases that have been reflected in public opinion, the continued perception of the defendant as guilty in society despite their acquittal is a serious issue.
Another important issue is the difficulty of compensating for time spent in detention. The acquitted person may not be able to fully recover the job, income, and social relationships lost during the period of detention. While the right to compensation under CPC Art. 141-144 provides for the compensation of these losses to a certain extent, full recovery may not always be possible.
The prolonged duration of the compensation lawsuit process and the inadequacy of compensation amounts are also among the issues criticized in practice. The imposition of low compensation amounts despite the acquitted person having experienced lengthy detention can undermine the sense of justice [TO BE VERIFIED].
Additionally, the negative evaluation of the existence of an investigation or prosecution despite an acquittal verdict during the security investigation and archive research process also stands out as an issue encountered in practice. Although it is contrary to law, the evaluation of the fact that a person was tried in the past as a disadvantage by some institutions despite the finalization of the acquittal verdict can be seen in practice.
Conclusion and Evaluation
The acquittal verdict constitutes a registration of the defendant's innocence in criminal proceedings and is a concrete outcome of the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. The acquittal reasons regulated in CPC Art. 223/2 address different legal situations and each may produce separate consequences. An acquitted defendant has the right to compensation under CPC Art. 141-144, and this right aims to compensate damages arising from unjust protective measures. The finalization of the acquittal verdict terminates all protective measures against the defendant and prevents retrial for the same act pursuant to the ne bis in idem principle. The reasoning of the acquittal verdict, sufficient discussion of evidence, and effective use of legal remedies are of great importance for the realization of the right to a fair trial.
Legal Disclaimer: This article has been prepared for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you are facing a specific legal issue regarding an acquittal verdict and the right to compensation, it is recommended that you consult an attorney. Information may vary in line with legislative changes and current judicial decisions.
This article was prepared by Av. Mustafa MALGIR.