Caselaw

Serious Crimes Case (Beer Sheva) 63357-03-18 State of Israel – F.M.D. V. Assaf Masoud Suissa - part 182

February 15, 2021
Print

In light of the aforesaid, since the testimonies of the defendants before us constitute a suppressed version, which was given only at a later stage of the trial, without any reasonable explanation being given for its suppression; And since these are defendants who, even according to their version, lied time and time again at the various stages of the investigation and in accordance with their interests, as I have the impression that they did before us as well, it is not possible to accept the defendants' new version, and it must be rejected.

  1. Conclusion and Decision Regarding the Factual Aspect

In light of all of the above, after I rejected the defendants' arguments regarding the admissibility of their statements to the police; In light of my determinations regarding the receipt of their statements to the police, with reservations about certain details, and while reinforcing the statements with external evidence; Having determined that the suppressed and "softened" version that they presented in their testimonies in court was not credible; In light of the defendants' confession to some of the facts, my conclusions regarding the facts that were proven regarding the incident and the events surrounding it will be detailed below.

Defendant 1 had an early acquaintance with the deceased, and prior to the incident he had conversations with him regarding the deceased's desire to sell a quantity of about 70 grams of cannabis.  Defendant 1 planned to take the drugs from the deceased without paying, and on February 25, 2018, he added defendant 2 to his plan, who in the evening came with him to the deceased's home as a potential buyer; The two saw the drugs, used them together with the deceased, and agreed with the deceased that they would purchase the drugs from him the next day, for NIS 60 per gram, even though they did not intend to pay him.  Some time after the encounter, while the deceased was leaving for work, the defendants returned to the deceased's house with the intention of breaking into it and stealing the drugs, checked the windows and door of the house, but when they could not find a way to enter, they left the place.

Previous part1...181182
183...202Next part