Uncertain knowlege of material element of an offense and its treatment in criminal law

Straipsnyje analizuojama Lietuvos baudžiamosios teisės teorijoje ligi šiol dar nenagrinėta sąvoka – kaltininko abejonė dėl jo padarytos nusikalstamos veikos aplinkybių. Atskleidžiamas jos turinys, nagrinėjama šios sąvokos reikšmė nustatant kaltininko kaltės formą. Pastebima, kad dabartinėje Lietuvos teismų praktikoje ir užsienio (Vokietijos, anglų-amerikiečių) baudžiamojoje teisėje kaltininko abejonė vertinama iš esmės skirtingai. Autorius nagrinėja šių pozicijų argumentus ir prieina prie išvados, kad užsienio autorių pozicija, kad abejonė yra suvokimo atmaina, galinti būti netiesioginės tyčios požymiu, yra tiek psichologiniu, tiek norminiu atžvilgiu pagrįstesnė. Kartu teikiami pasiūlymai tobulinti galiojančio baudžiamojo įstatymo nuostatas, kad siūloma pozicija būtų efektyviai įdiegta Lietuvos baudžiamojoje teisėje.This article discusses the mental state of uncertain (reckless) knowledge of material element of an offense and its treatment in criminal law. The mental state of reckless knowledge is common in criminal cases, especially in cases of smuggling, drug trafficking, sexual coercion and rape of a person under eighteen years of age, pickpocketing and etc. This state of mind is described as situation, when a person receives incomplete or contradictory information about element of an offense but suspects the real facts. However, notion of reckless knowledge of material element of an offense is still unknown in Lithuanian theory of the criminal law. Lithuanian theory of the criminal law operates only with notions of knowledge and ignorance, and also with general notion of perception. Lithuanian courts do not use notion of uncertain knowledge either. In most cases they treat uncertain knowledge as case of ignorance of a circumstance. In contrast, German, English, American criminal law and some Russian authors treats uncertain knowledge as case of perception, not as ignorance or mistake. This article contends, that this point of view is grounded better. This article discusses whether uncertain knowledge of circumstance could suffice for dolus eventualis. On the other hand, it is discussed, whether dolus eventualis could suffice conviction for offenses, which have not consequences as their material element (offenses with formal corpus delicti). Lithuanian criminal law traditionally rejects positive answers to these questions. German, most English and American (as far, as question concerns recklessness) and some Russian authors hold opposite point of view. This article contends, that traditional Lithuanian attitude does not hold critic from psychological and normative point of view and should be changed. However Lithuanian Criminal Code does not provide definition of dolus eventualis for offenses with formal corpus delicti, therefore author proposes to fill this gap temporarily by judicial practice and doctrine. The need to supplement Lithuanian Criminal Code with definition of dolus eventualis, applicable for offenses with formal corpus delicti is also highlighted