Modification of Criminal Procedure Status: A Concept and Types

The existence of a procedural status for a person in a criminal case is an essential attribute of Russian criminal procedure, since it is precisely procedural status that characterizes the specific rights and obligations of an individual and, in certain cases, the possibility of bringing that person to liability. Procedural status is assigned either in connection with a person’s relation to the crime or by virtue of functional factors established by criminal procedural law, determined by the public-law nature of criminal proceedings and prompted by the need to establish the circumstances of the offense. Any change in procedural status must be based on the aforementioned factors. At the same time, modification of status sometimes entails a radical change in the nature of the person’s participation in the case; in a number of instances, the law enshrines the impossibility of changing or combining statuses. Three types of status modification are identified: transition, transformation, and combination. Transition is associated with a person’s performance of activity different from the initial one and is possible mainly within the framework of the prosecution. Transformation denotes the emergence of a new status together with the simultaneous loss of the previous one. Sequential transformation means that the subject acquires a qualitatively homogeneous status in comparison with the preceding one. Non-sequential transformation includes various situations in which the original status is lost and a new one is acquired as a result of the determination of the circumstances of the case. The combination of statuses is permissible when one status is assigned by virtue of a factual factor, while the other is functional in nature.

1. Belousova IV. What is the status of the person against whom the criminal case has been separated into a separate proceeding? Russian Investigator. 2022;8:29-31. (In Russ.).

2. Cheremisina TV. Interrogation of an investigator in court as a way to eliminate investigative errors. Universum: Economics and Jurisprudence. Series Law. 2024;6(116). (In Russ.).

3. Grishina EB. Testimony in the system of types of evidence in criminal proceedings in Russia. Cand. Sci. (Law) Diss. Orel; 2010. (In Russ.).

4. Gushchin AN. Issues of the participation of a legal representative in the interrogation of a minor suspect (accused). Criminal Procedure Protection of the Rights and Legitimate Interests of Minors. 2022;1(19):42-46. (In Russ.).

5. Kalinkina LD, Krysina NR. The conflict of interests of the principals is the basis for the challenge of a lawyer in criminal proceedings. Law and Practice. 2019;4:181-185. (In Russ.).

6. Khaidarov AA. Questioning an Attorney as a Witness in the Client’s Case: Issues of Legality of Compelling Appearance and Admissibility of Evidence. Aktual’nye problemy rossijskogo prava. 2022;17(6)(139):114-121. (In Russ.).

7. Kirdina NA. Procedural guarantees of the objectivity of the proceedings of investigative actions. Cand. Sci. (Law) Diss. Author’s Abstract. Saratov; 2011. (In Russ.).

8. Mayorova LV. Features of the legal status of a person in respect of whom a criminal case has been separated into a separate proceeding in connection with the conclusion of a pre-trial cooperation agreement with him. Vestnik Sibirskogo yuridicheskogo instituta MVD Rossii. 2023;1:(50):99-104. (In Russ.).

9. Morozova AS. A defense lawyer as a mechanism for implementing a strategy for protecting the rights and freedoms of the accused and the suspect. Criminal Justice. 2023;22:55-59. (In Russ.).

10. Shatrova AV. Procedural status of a person in respect of whom proceedings are underway to apply compulsory medical measures. Proceedings of Southwest State University. The series: History and Law. 2021;11(4):111-122. (In Russ.).

11. Smolkova IV, Lavdarenko LI. Legal status of a person against whom proceedings are being conducted on the application of compulsory medical measures. Academic Law Journal. 2021;22(4)(86):361-368. (In Russ.).

12. Smolkova IV. Evidentiary significance of the interrogation of the investigator as a witness in court. Russian Judge. 2013;6:11-14. (In Russ.).

13. Stelmakh VYu. A new participant in criminal proceedings — the accused in a dedicated criminal case («involved witness»). Bulletin of the Kaliningrad Branch of the Saint-Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2019;3(57):35-39. (In Russ.).

14. Titov PM. Counterclaim in criminal cases of private prosecution: essence, procedure for filing and permission. Bulletin of St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2019;4(84):146-152. (In Russ.).

15. Titov PM. Criminal proceedings in cases of private prosecution: monograph. Moscow: Yurlitinform Publ.; 2022. (In Russ.).

16. Titov PM. Some problems of criminal proceedings in cases of private prosecution. Russian Law Journal. 2019;4(127):69-77. (In Russ.).

17. Yunusov AA, Bashirov TM. Problems of interrogation of law enforcement officials in the court of first instance. Politics, State and Law. 2014;4. (In Russ.).