This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site, while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Cookie settings
infiriendo a la vez en su incidencia a nivel de funcionalidad ecológica
implica una fuerza de la pinza con una resistencia baja

Glossary entry

Spanish term or phrase:

absolver de la instancia

English translation:

(AmE) dismiss the case without prejudice; (BrE) enter an open-ended nolle prosequi

Added to glossary by Adrian MM. (X)
Apr 20, 2016 02:31
8 yrs ago
37 viewers *
Spanish term

absolver de la instancia

Spanish to English Law/Patents Law (general) Mexican Constitution
From the end of Article 23 of the Mexican Constitution, which relates to double jeopardy.
Here's the text in full:

ARTICULO 23 - Ningún juicio criminal deberá tener más de tres instancias. Nadie puede ser juzgado dos veces por el mismo delito, ya sea que en el juicio se le absuelva o se le condene. Queda prohibida la práctica de absolver de la instancia.

It's fairly straightforward except for the last sentence, which puzzles me.

I found an English translation of the constitution from Mexico's UNAM, but the English is rather poorly written so I'm not convinced of its credibility.
It reads:
ARTICLE 23 - No criminal trial shall have more than three instances. No one shall be put on trial twice for the same crime. Besides, acquittal from trial shall be forbidden.

Does anyone know if this really is what that last part means? If it does mean acquittal is forbidden, then why raise it in the first place ("ya sea que en el juicio se le absuelva o se le condene")? It just seems an odd wording if that is indeed its meaning.

Thanks in advance.
Proposed translations (English)
3 +2 (the practice of) judicial abdication from decision-making; (AmE) dismiss without prejudice
4 +2 Dismiss the case without deciding it
References
Commentaries on this sentence
Change log

May 4, 2016 05:57: Adrian MM. (X) Created KOG entry

Discussion

Sandro Tomasi May 6, 2016:
Becerra will be coming out with an online, subsription-based dictionary very soon. Out of the 45 Eng-Sp law dictionaries that I have, I believe his is the best -- except when it comes to criminal law.

His assertion that in other countries aka sobreseimiento provisional - temporary acquittal is incorrect. It is not a temporary acquittal, but a temporary dismissal. Hence, absolver de la instancia is not to temporarily acquit the accused, but to conditionally dismiss the case -- in other words, to dismiss without prejudice.

Diccionario Juridico Elemental (Cabanellas de Torres)
absolución:
La sentencia o resolución del juez por la cual termina el juicio o proceso declarando al demandado libre de la demanda; o al reo, de la acusación que se la ha formulado. ... Cabe distinguir la absolución del sobreseimiento, que consiste en la cesación definitiva o provisional del proceso seguido en averiguación de un delito y de sus autores.
Charles Davis May 6, 2016:
That's a pretty good account of it, I would say, though I'm still not happy about the word "acquit", even accompanied by "temporary" (but let's not reopen the debate!).
Robert Carter (asker) May 6, 2016:
A footnote to this entry... I finally stumped up for the 2012 edition of the Javier Becerra Dictionary of Mexican Legal Terminology (something I should have done 4 years ago, now I've seen it), and this was the first thing I looked up...

absolver de la instancia - to temporarily acquit the accused (in other countries also known as sobreseimiento provisional - temporary acquittal); in criminal law, old practice now abandoned and prohibited by the federal constitution, to declare a criminal defendant not guilty for lack of sufficient evidence, subject to reopening the case at a later date if and when more convincing evidence is presented in court.

So there you have it. Although, if I had bought it sooner, we probably wouldn't have had this great exchange.

I hope Becerra makes this dictionary into an online resource at some point, with regular updates, I for one would definitely buy a subscription.
lorenab23 Apr 27, 2016:
ha ha ha Adrian Thank you for humoring me :-) I will stop being disruptive now and continue to observe from afar the brilliant minds at work!
Sandro Tomasi Apr 26, 2016:
Yeah, but a conditional discharge implies a conviction, whereas a conditional dismissal does not. If that’s your only hesitation, I don’t see the need to avoid conditional dismissal.

From the glossary found in the UK Criminal Procedure Rules:
conditional discharge: an order which does not impose any immediate punishment on a person convicted of an offence, subject to the condition that he does not commit an offence in a specified period
Adrian MM. (X) Apr 26, 2016:
Latest points made/planteamientos mejicanos First, Lorena. Let us have a mugshot of your goodself to see what Californian beauty is pursuing us as a 'crazy stalker'.

Second, Sandro I agree with your points of no formal acquittal cf. the Peasenhall Murder case a.k.a. the famous EN Trial of William Gardiner that referred to the 'disposal' of the case by a 'writ of nolle prosequi' - which leads on to the UK interpretation of dismissal amounting- in your quote - to an acquittal. I am therefore hesitant or (Scots) havering about conditional or temporary dismissal that look too much like a conditional discharge of the defendant on notice to behave him- or herself.

Third and 'in closing' but not perhaps in final disposal, I take Robert C's point of a dismissal without prejudice in UK employment law that I did 'gravely' study all of 40 years ago and def. did not exist at that time.
Robert Carter (asker) Apr 26, 2016:
Dismissal without prejudice in the UK Hmmm. It looks to me as though this can't be used in the UK, since it has another quite different meaning, concerning employment, i.e. "firing":
https://www.contactlaw.co.uk/134-nolink-uk/areas-of-law/empl...
Sandro Tomasi Apr 26, 2016:
UK & Scots Tweaking Adrian,

I can't speak to UK and Scottish law, but I thought we agreed that absolver is not acquittal in this context. If true, “acquittal for lack of evidence” and “acquittal following a submission of no case to answer” would not work. Right?

In the notes to the UK Criminal Procedure Rules:
Under section 27 of the 1980 Act, where a magistrates’ court dismisses an allegation of an offence classified as one that can be tried either in a magistrates’ court or in the Crown Court (in other legislation, described as triable either way), that dismissal has the same effect as an acquittal in the Crown Court.

Would we not be able to use dismissal without prejudice for EW and Sct.? If not, what about conditional dismissal or temporary dismissal?
lorenab23 Apr 26, 2016:
like a crazy stalker I have been quietly following this discussion (AKA spicy Mexican mix). I knew you guys were smart, but this...HOLY TOLEDO!!! Thank you.
Charles Davis Apr 25, 2016:
Mexico takes the lead Mexicans might justifiably feel proud of the fact that Mexico apparently abolished this before Spain did!

A nolle prosequi, entered by the court, would be pretty similar, I would have thought, though I don't really feel qualified to judge.
Adrian MM. (X) Apr 25, 2016:
A UK- E&W vs- Scots - equivalent We need to distinguish again England & Wales from Scotland - in the latter case: 'a finding of not proven' pace Allegro and cf. Robb dictionary's 'acquittal for lack of evidence'.

In the former case, consider Seth's 'acquittal following a submission of no case to answer'.

Without going right back to Norman French law or the Anglo-Saxon Codes - the leges barbarorum based more on Roman than Germanic law - I reckon, Charles, it's always possible, as the late Lord Denning used to do, to dig up and dust off an old case or doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasenhall_Murder on which 'authority' I'd suggest 'entry of an open-ended nolle prosequi' (by the court vs. the prosecution or Attorney-General).
Robert Carter (asker) Apr 25, 2016:
Brilliant work there Charles. You've gone above and beyond as usual, and thoroughly explained what I was trying to understand there. It's good to know that even native-speakers of more than 200 years ago had a hard time understanding the phrase!
I've finished my translation now, and in the end I went for "dismissal without prejudice" (it is for the US, Adrian, so no problem).
I'm very glad I asked the question, what with the mediocre English translations of the Mexican Constitution in existence, and the completely idiomatic nature of the term.
The only question remaining is what to enter in the glossary? I'd definitely use "dismissal without prejudice", but I'm not sure about which term is suitable for UK law. Any thoughts, Adrian? (simplified for simple folk like me, please)
Charles Davis Apr 25, 2016:
First, thank you very much for the compliment, Sandro.

It is for Robert to say whether he wants a British turn of phrase. He does say in his profile that he translates for the US market, and that may well be the case here.

But if so, it might still be useful to know what expression should be used to translate this for the British market, should the need arise. It may be that there is no equivalent in modern British criminal procedure that is close enough to serve. That would not be very surprising. It is an archaic procedure in the Hispanic world. It was constitutionally prohibited in Mexico in 1857; Article 23 of the 1917 Constitution took over Article 24 of the 1857 text verbatim (except that the latter reads "Queda abolida la práctica de absolver de la instancia"). So in principle it shouldn't have been happening in Mexico for nearly 160 years now. And in Spain it seems to have been prohibited by 1870.

By the way, in the translation of the 1917 text included in Oxford’s Constitutions of the World (translated by one Rainer Grote), this is rendered as "The practice of absolving from the instance is prohibited."
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Mexico_2007.p...
Adrian MM. (X) Apr 25, 2016:
Sandro @ spicy US/Mexican mixes Indeed, Charles D. is great at (re)searches. ('Tis a pity William 'Bill' Harrison is no longer communicado). Whilst I am a fan of US federal state law, I would venture the following gratuitous comments 1. dismissal without prejudice is US/Can law. I stand corrected, but the asker seems to be after a British turn of phrase. 2. There is no such thing in the EN law of evidence as a 'presumption of innocence'. It is a way of describing the *burden* of proof that, like 'a golden thread' throughout EN legal history, is on the prosecution during a criminal trial (unless an absolute defenc/se like provocation, insanity or self-defenc/se is raised) to prove its case to a *standard* of proof that is beyond reasonable doubt - and, counter-intuitively, not to get at the truth. This non-UK lawyers & judges find 'surprising'. 3. auto de sobreseimiento may be tantamount to an acquittal, but a sobreseimiento provisional begs the question to my (twisted) mind as to whether this is an interim stay of the prosecution or deferment (postponing) of judgment: two different things.
Sandro Tomasi Apr 25, 2016:
Mexican Statutes As strange as it may seem, México does, indeed, do away with dismissals without prejudice since dismissals, under their statutes, are analogous to acquittals. This is true with their former inquisitorial code (1) as well as their new, 2014, adversarial code (2).

Codigo Federal de Procedimientos Penales (2002)
Artículo 304.- El auto de sobreseimiento que haya causado estado, surtirá los efectos de una sentencia absolutoria con valor de cosa juzgada.

Código Nacional de Procedimientos Penales (2014)
Artículo 328. Efectos del sobreseimiento
El sobreseimiento firme tiene efectos de sentencia absolutoria, pone fin al procedimiento en relación con el imputado en cuyo favor se dicta, inhibe una nueva persecución penal por el mismo hecho y hace cesar todas las medidas cautelares que se hubieran dictado.
Sandro Tomasi Apr 25, 2016:
cont. Here we have an authoritative work, the Diccionario Jurídico Mexicano, establishing that an absolución de la instancia is the same thing as a sobreseimiento provisional. I think that most, if not all, of us can agree that a sobreseimiento provisional is a dismissal without prejudice. Moreover, it also juxtapositions absolución de la instancia with the pre presumption of innocence historical background, which gives further perspective on how devastating a dismissal without prejudice could be in a legal system where a defendant is not presumed innocent.
Sandro Tomasi Apr 25, 2016:
Charles, First off, you are an amazing legal terminologist. I’ve spent years comparatively researching English<>Spanish criminal and criminal procedure terminology, and you just effortlessly cite some of the most relevant monolingual sources herein (the 1882 LECr, the Diccionario Jurídico Mexicano). In particular, the smoking-gun evidence found in the Diccionario Jurídico Mexicano:
Esta institución [absolución de la instancia] denominada también “sobreseimiento provisional” se practicó en una etapa histórica del proceso penal anterior a la aplicación del principio de la presunción de inocencia del inculpado, ya que de acuerdo con la absolución de la instancia, el procesado quedaba en una situación de inseguridad, en cuanto a su culpabilidad o inocencia, pues se mantenía la amenaza de continuar el procedimiento en cuanto se reunieran nuevos elementos de convicción en su contra.
Adrian MM. (X) Apr 22, 2016:
A Swiss parallel in civil cases Nicheintreten = non-entertainment of the case, refusal to consider even the merits and non-addressing of the issues, namely to shortcircuit any adjudication, but this IMO is a lazy judicial practice: http://www.proz.com/kudoz/german_to_english/law_general/1857...
Charles Davis Apr 22, 2016:
(5) Now, given that the possibility of further proceedings despite a failure to convict is the problem and the reason why this is in the constitution, it seems to me that this should somehow be reflected in the translation. Just saying dismissal without a verdict, which is correct, won’t convey the real point. That’s why I agreed with “without prejudice” (specifically with that), previously suggested by Tom West here. I think something like “the practice of dismissing a case for insufficient evidence without a verdict of innocence and without prejudice to further proceedings” would make it completely clear, though I would be very happy to see this tweaked and/or trimmed.
Charles Davis Apr 22, 2016:
(4) Ref: http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Penal/lecr.l1t1.htm...

Finally, here is the clearest and most authoritative Mexican explanation I’ve found:

“Concepto de Absolución de la Instancia que proporciona el Diccionario Jurídico Mexicano (1994), de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación: (escrito por Héctor Fix-Zamudio) Suspensión del proceso penal por no existir suficientes medios probatorios para demostrar la responsabilidad del inculpado o la existencia de los elementos materiales del delito que se le imputa, con la posibilidad de reanudarse posteriormente cuando se obtenga nueva información en su contra. Esta institución denominada también “sobreseimiento provisional” se practicó en una etapa histórica del proceso penal anterior a la aplicación del principio de la presunción de inocencia del inculpado, ya que de acuerdo con la absolución de la instancia, el procesado quedaba en una situación de inseguridad, en cuanto a su culpabilidad o inocencia, pues se mantenía la amenaza de continuar el procedimiento en cuanto se reunieran nuevos elementos de convicción en su contra.”
http://mexico.leyderecho.org/absolucion-de-la-instancia/
Charles Davis Apr 22, 2016:
(3) By 1882, when the Spanish Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal was introduced, it had come to be seen as an intolerable abuse. The language in the “Explicación de motivos” of the Royal Decree is remarkably strong:

“la absolución de la instancia, esta corruptela que hacía del ciudadano a quien el Estado no había podido convencer de culpable una especie de liberto de por vida, verdadero siervo de la curia marcado con el estigma del deshonor [...]
por último la fórmula de la absolución de la instancia o, lo que es lo mismo, dejando indefinidamente abierto el procedimiento [...]
sería temerario negar que aun bajo la legislación vigente no es raro que un sumario dure ocho o más años, [...] y aún podría añadirse, para completar el cuadro, que tan escandalosos procesos solían no ha mucho terminar por una absolución de la instancia, sin que nadie indemnizara en este caso a los procesados de las vejaciones sufridas en tan dilatado período, y lo que es más, dejándoles por todo el resto de su vida en situación incómoda y deshonrosa, bajo la amenaza perenne de abrir de nuevo el procedimiento el día en que por malquerencia se prestaba a declarar contra ellos cualquier vecino rencoroso y vengativo.
Charles Davis Apr 22, 2016:
(2) This expression was defined in the very first Royal Academy dictionary. The academicians evidently felt that its meaning could not simply be deduced from the generic definitions of absolver and instancia, and needed to be defined separately:

ABSOLVER DE LA INSTANCIA. term. forense. Dár libertád al reo por falta de probanzas, quedando pendiente la causa para continuar en ella siempre que las huviére.

In 1770 their successors elaborated this as follows:

Vale absolver al reo de la acusacion ó demanda que se le ha puesto, quando no hay méritos para darle por libre, ni para condenarle: y entonces sin embargo de quedar absuelto de la actual acusacion ó demanda, no lo queda del juicio, pues con nuevos méritos se puede instaurar.

This definition remained essentially unchanged until 1914. Then in 1925 it was revised as follows:

En el enjuiciamiento criminal anterior al vigente, fallar el proceso sin condena, por falta de pruebas de cargo, pero sin absolver al reo, y dejando abierto el juicio para ampliarlo eventualmente.

In other words, by then it was no longer part of Spanish criminal procedure. This definition remained in the DRAE until 1992
Charles Davis Apr 22, 2016:
(1) Sandro: I’m afraid I don’t understand what your Mexican contact has said either.

I suppose the literal meaning of the words would something like “release the accused from the proceedings”. But the problem, for me, is that nothing approximating to a literal translation conveys the effective meaning or enables a reader to understand why this practice should be prohibited.

This is not a specifically Mexican phenomenon; it raises the same issues, historically, in Spain. The crux of the matter, of course, is that absolver here does not means acquit. There is no reason why the constitution should protect citizens from being acquitted. It means that the case is dismissed because there is insufficient evidence to convict, but there is no verdict; guilt has not been established, but neither has innocence. That wouldn’t really matter, except that because the case has not been decided, another prosecution can be brought at any time in the future with further evidence. The case is permanently pending. It effectively circumvents ne bis in idem. And that, of course, is the problem and what the constitution is protecting against, but it’s the part that is understood and not stated
Adrian MM. (X) Apr 22, 2016:
not proven in Scots law ... is still an alternative verdict of acquittal, to wit: out of three (the others being guilty and not guilty), whereas this 'absolution' seems to have been shortcircuited at an earlier, non-adjudicatory stage. I take the 'tainted' point, but regard it as anti-Scottish, so will not dwell on such tainting.
AllegroTrans Apr 22, 2016:
Isn't this a bit like... ... the Scots "not proven" verdict (which some critics regard as "tainted")?
Sandro Tomasi Apr 22, 2016:
According to the Mexican Law Prof.: “Anteriormente, la determinación si se iba a procesar a una persona o no era por medio de una sentencia, lo que era ilegal y por eso surgió el auto de formal prisión o de sujeción a proceso para evitar que fuera una sentencia y con eso se absolvía de la istancia. En nuestro sistema o se condena o se absuelve pero en forma definitiva por eso el texto constitucional.”

I still don't know what it means. Does anyone else? If not, I'll impose on him again to further enlighten us.
Adrian MM. (X) Apr 22, 2016:
Syntactically: absolver (a un tio) de la instancia Component parts: the object or 'theme/rheme' is missing but understood. After having my mouth burned out with Mexican chili last night, I 'speak' with great authority.
Robert Carter (asker) Apr 22, 2016:
A question: Thanks for all the comments so far, you've made it much more understandable. I do have a question though: what do you understand specifically by the wording "absolver de la instancia", I mean breaking it down into its components?
It's far from clear that these meanings that have been inferred from it are what is meant by that peculiar phrase, so I'd just like to hear any comments you may have regarding this.
How does the word "absolver" relate to the "de la instancia" here?
Or is it just some arcane usage that has little to do with the actual meaning implied?
Sandro Tomasi Apr 21, 2016:
Adrian, This 'spicy Mexican mix' might just be too hot for me to handle. At this point, I am only guessing. I've put the question to a friend of mine who is a criminal procedure law professor in Mexico. As soon as he gets back to me, I'll post here.
Adrian MM. (X) Apr 21, 2016:
Suborning @ Charles D. & Sandro's openness 'a tainted acquittal normally means one that was improperly obtained, by some sort of abuse such as interfering with witnesses or jurors, not one where facts detrimental to the accused didn't come to light at the time..' The suborning of witnesses induced by the accused may indeed be an adverse fact that comes to light only post-acquittal.
Otherwise, Sandro T. may care to post his translation to capture the true flavo(u)r of the 'spicy Mexican mix'-
Sandro Tomasi Apr 20, 2016:
Queda prohib. la prác. de absolver de la instancia I could see it as being dismissal without prejudice because Mexico only allows dismissing with prejudice. However, it makes more sense, in my mind, to translate somewhere along the lines of Charles' last reference:(Queda prohibida la práctica de) mantener abierto indefinidamente el proceso - Keeping the proceedings open indefinitely (is prohibited).
Charles Davis Apr 20, 2016:
@Adrian Understood, but a tainted acquittal normally means one that was improperly obtained, by some sort of abuse such as interfering with witnesses or jurors, not one where facts detrimental to the accused didn't come to light at the time. And appeal is not relevant here because what the Mexican constitution prohibits is further proceedings at first instance.
Adrian MM. (X) Apr 20, 2016:
No case to answer @ Charles D. Both parts or limbs of your comment run into each other. If a no case submission is made, the court acquits the accused (Scotland) or enters judgment for the defendant (E&W). If evidence later comes to light that shows the accused was a 'bounder, rogue and rascal', the acquittal would IMO have been tainted. It then depends whether the country involved allows a retrial: E&W, Scotland and N.I. - a qualified yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy. Republic of Eire - a qualified no 'if a jury acquits somebody, this cannot be appealed – what can be appealed is, for example, a claim that the trial judge’s directions to the jury were incorrect/erroneous on a point of law.' Quaere: the Isle of Man & the Channel Islands.
Charles Davis Apr 20, 2016:
@Adrian I don't think this has anything to do with tainted acquittal. As for no case to answer, does this preclude a later prosecution on the same charges in the same case at first instance? If it doesn't, then it might be applicable here.
Charles Davis Apr 20, 2016:
dismissal without prejudice I think this expression, which Tom West himself uses in a peer comment in the previous question referred to by Adrian, captures the essential point of this constitutional protection. The commentaries I have cited below explain that absolución de la instancia is prohibited because it effectively suspends the case without resolving it, leaving open the possibility of bringing the same prosecution again later with better evidence. It is clear that absolución de la instancia is not an acquittal; it doesn't "use up" an instance.

Proposed translations

+2
4 hrs
Spanish term (edited): (la práctica de) absolver de la instancia
Selected

(the practice of) judicial abdication from decision-making; (AmE) dismiss without prejudice

I think or guess in American that the translation can go different ways Transantlantically.

Note that Tom West III himself intervenes in the web ref. to correct with to without prjeudice.

Butterworths ES/EN law dictionary: acquit for lack of evidence.

I like Seth's ref. to Varó's finding of no case to answer cf. conditional discharge where an order is made, whilst believe this is a decision and one in the defendant's favo(u)r.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 days (2016-04-26 15:29:53 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

My UK version so far: 'entry of an open-ended nolle prosequi not finally disposing of the case'.
Example sentence:

Judicial Abdication and Equal Access to the Civil Justice System

Reference:

http://www.proz.com/kudoz/spanish_to_english/law_patents/155898-absoluci%C3%B3n_de_la_instancia.html

http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_%28sentence%29

Peer comment(s):
agree Charles Davis : Dismissal without prejudice captures the essential point of this provision, which is to prevent circumvention of double jeopardy by effective suspension of the case while the prosecution fish for better evidence.
35 mins
Thanks, albeit closer to a finding of 'no case to answer' or even a 'tainted acquittal' in the UK.
neutral philgoddard : How is this different to Seth's answer? And have you ever agreed with someone else?
5 hrs
1. without prejudice 2. dismissal in the US sense of on the court's as well as litigant's initiative 3. the use of the word abdication 4. raising the point of a 'tainted acquittal' you should be up-to-date with & 5. an alternative answer is not a disagree
agree Sandro Tomasi : Diccionario Jurídico Mexicano: Esta institución [absolución de la instancia] denominada también “sobreseimiento provisional” [= dismissal without prejudice].
5 days
Thanks and gracias!
Something went wrong...
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer. Comment: "Selected automatically based on peer agreement."
+2
15 mins

Dismiss the case without deciding it

Per Thomas West: Absolución de la instancia > Dismissing the case without deciding it
"In criminal cases in Mexico, absolución de la instancia is unconstitutiaonl (Art. 23 of Mexican Constitution] because criminal defendants have a right to a decision of guilty or not guilty. In civil cases, a judgment can be null and void because of 'absolución de la instancia'"

Varó has similar entry (based on Spanish Law, though):
Absolución de la instancia [PROC] > dismissal of the prosecution case for want of evidence; finding of <<no no case to answer>>; judicial stoppin of the case [<<at half time>>] [...]

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 21 mins (2016-04-20 02:53:09 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Also from Rebecca Jower's lexicon (also based on Spanish Law):
Sentencia meramente procesal / Sentencia en la instancia > judgment without a ruling on the merits

Essentially, Absolución can mean judgement especially when it's not referral an acquittal

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 21 mins (2016-04-20 02:53:29 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

referring to* (not referral)

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 34 mins (2016-04-20 03:06:21 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

No problem Robert. Yeah Becerra doesn't have an entry. I always resort to West first before Becerra since West's (at the 2012 edition) is more up-to-date. As to the last part, ".... without a decision handed down" (or another version of that) would be more appropriate as the suspect / alleged offender could be found guilty in the court decision.
Note from asker:
Thanks Seth, it didn't occur to me to look it up in West, and Becerra doesn't have an entry. It makes sense in the context of the rest of the Article. So in that case, I suppose it actually means "dismissing a case without handing down an acquittal"?
Peer comment(s):
agree philgoddard : Can't argue with references that good!
2 hrs
agree AllegroTrans : In other words, guilty or not guilty, no "in-between" (cf. Scotland)
2 days 16 hrs
Something went wrong...

Reference comments

4 hrs
Reference:

Commentaries on this sentence

"Absolver de la instancia en el Derecho Constitucional

Descripción que efectúa el Diccionario Jurídico de Derecho Constitucional (México, 1997) sobre Absolver de la instancia: De absolver, del latín absolvere, desatar; y de instancia, del latín instancia, suplicar, pedir. Joaquín Escriche definía el término como:

“Absolver ó dar por quito y libre al reo, no precisamente del delito que se le imputa ó de la cosa que se le pide, sino solo del juicio que se ha seguido, esto es, de los autos hechos; lo cual suele verificarse cuando no hay méritos para declararle libre absolutamente ni para condenarle: y en semejante caso, sobreviniendo nuevos méritos, podrá volvérsele a demandar sobre la misma cosa ó acusar sobre el mismo delito, bien que no valdrán los autos pasados, sino solo los instrumentos y probanzas, reproduciéndolos de nuevo.”
[...]
El contexto histórico y constitucional indica que la prohibición está limitada a la materia penal; busca garantizar el principio de seguridad jurídica de los individuos y obligar al ministerio público a acusar cuando considera que ha reunido los elementos necesarios para acreditar la responsabilidad del acusado, en el entendido de que, de no hacerlo, agota en forma definitiva su facultad y obligación a acusar. El reo, por lo mismo, en un proceso, sólo puede resultar o absuelto o condenado; en el caso no importa que por pruebas sobrevinientes se desprenda un punto de vista diferente. La prohibición es oponible tanto en primera como en segunda instancia y es valedera en todo tipo de proceso penal, ya sea federa, local, del fuero militar o ante el gran jurado.
La suprema corte de justicia, en la revisión fiscal 449/70 (145/65), mediante resolución de 11 de diciembre de 1972, por unanimidad de votos, consideró que la prohibición de absolver de la instancia es aplicable en los procedimientos administrativos."
http://mexico.leyderecho.org/absolver/
______________

"Se prohíbe la práctica de absolver de la instancia

La Real Academia Española estima que la palabra "absolver" proviene del latín absolvere. En primer lugar significa "dar por libre de algún cargo u obligación"; con todo, la propia Academia ofrece un significado jurídico: "Declarar libre de responsabilidad penal al acusado de un delito." Esta acepción no es determinante para comprender qué pretendió el Constituyente al prohibir la práctica de absolver de la instancia. El dispositivo constitucional pretende evitar que el proceso penal se suspenda, hecho que implica la falta de una sentencia que dirima el litigio surgido entre las partes; es decir, una resolución que deje en claro si el acusado es o no culpable del delito que se le imputó desde un principio. Esto no implica que el inculpado quede libre definitivamente; antes bien, ignorará su situación jurídica mientras no se dicte una sentencia que ponga fin a su proceso, y para que esto ocurra deberán recabarse los elementos necesarios para que el juzgador sentencie
Esta garantía constitucional pretende evitar que el proceso penal se suspenda, hecho que implica una sentencia que dirima el litigio surgido entre las partes; es decir, una resolución que deje en claro si el acusado es o no culpable del delito que se le imputó desde un principio."
http://danielmvazquez91.blogspot.com.es/2015/02/breve-explic...
______________

"Absolución de la instancia
[...] en materia penal, significa dicha absolución la posibilidad legal de reabrir el proceso para la aportación de nuevos elementos probatorios encaminados a obtener una condena que en el anterior quedó frustrada. La absolución de al instancia en materia penal es totalmente incompatible con nuestro sistema constitucional."
http://www.lexivox.org/packages/lexml/mostrar_diccionario.ph...
______________

"absolución en la instancia
1. f. Der. Pronunciamiento realizado en la sentencia cuando un juez o un tribunal acoge una excepción procesal y se abstiene de resolver el fondo."
http://dle.rae.es/?id=0CQV0ly
______________

"Finalmente, la última frase de esta disposición de nuestra ley fundamental prohíbe la injusta práctica de absolver de la instancia, consistente en mantener abierto indefinidamente el proceso, so pretexto de falta de pruebas o de elementos suficientes para absolver o para condenar."
http://biblio.juridicas.unam.mx/libros/4/1788/27.pdf
Peer comments on this reference comment:
agree Sandro Tomasi : Your last ref is concise (mantener abierto indefinidamente el proceso) and makes sense that such a practice would be constitutionally barred.
8 hrs
I think so too. Thanks, Sandro.
agree AllegroTrans
2 days 12 hrs
Thanks!
Something went wrong...
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search