19.06.2026 11:02
A landmark decision has come from the Court of Cassation regarding the 'I entered to sleep' defense commonly used by suspects who trespass into homes and workplaces. Evaluating a defendant convicted of theft who appealed with the claim, 'I entered to rest, but due to my criminal record, I was not believed,' the Court of Cassation upheld the prison sentence imposed by the local court. The ruling emphasized that defenses contrary to the ordinary course of life are not sufficient on their own to avoid punishment.
The defense of suspects caught red-handed while entering private properties such as homes and workplaces with the intent to steal, claiming "I entered to sleep and rest, but my word is not trusted due to my criminal record," is being rejected by courts. The 2nd Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which evaluated the theft defendant's appeal against his prison sentence, upheld the penalty imposed on the defendant.
THIEF'S SCENARIO REJECTED BY COURT OF CASSATION
The argument of thieves who victimize people by entering homes and workplaces despite their criminal records, claiming "I entered to sleep," comes before courts as one of the most common classic defense tactics in criminal proceedings. During the trial process, this defense of the defendants is refuted by evidence collected by the prosecution (public prosecutor's office).
A case was filed against G.D., caught red-handed in a house he entered for theft, at the 1st Criminal Court of First Instance on charges of 'Theft and violation of domicile inviolability.' The defendant's defense, "I entered not to steal but to rest, but my word was not trusted due to my criminal record," found no response in court.
"ENTERING HOME WITHOUT PERMISSION TO SLEEP IS NOT CONSIDERED REASONABLE"
The court, noting that forcing door and window locks, overcoming obstacles such as walls and roofs are clear indicators of intent to steal or damage property, stated: "In our legal system, when evaluating defenses, the ordinary course of life is taken into account. Entering the home of someone you don't know without permission to sleep is not considered reasonable. The presence of cutting tools (crowbar, screwdriver), gloves, masks, or stolen items on or around the suspect completely eliminates this excuse. Such baseless statements are generally an escape attempt to mitigate the sentence or change the nature of the crime." The court then sentenced the defendant to imprisonment. When the defendant appealed the decision, the 2nd Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation stepped in.
APPEAL IS VALID ONLY WHEN THE JUDGMENT IS UNLAWFUL
The 2nd Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, evaluating the appeal application of the theft defendant named G.D., issued a decision akin to an ultimatum. It reminded of Article 288 of Law No. 5271, stating, "An appeal is based only on the ground that the judgment is unlawful. Failure to apply or incorrect application of a legal rule constitutes unlawfulness." It emphasized that Article 294 of the same Law stipulates, "The appellant must indicate in the appeal application the reasons why the judgment should be overturned. The ground for appeal can only relate to the legal aspect of the judgment." The decision included the following statements: "The defendant's appeal request is based on the claims that he did not enter the victim's home with the intent to steal, but to sleep; that his words were not trusted due to his past criminal record; and that Article 62 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 was not applied. It was determined that the appeal request of the defendant's counsel (lawyer) relates to the claims that the defendant did not commit the alleged crime, that the conviction was based on abstract and baseless assessment, and that an acquittal decision should be rendered. Upon review of these grounds, no unlawfulness was found. Since it is understood that there is no error in the judgment established against the defendant for the crime of theft due to his act against the victim, and the decision to reject the appeals on the merits is found lawful, it was unanimously decided to reject the unfounded appeal objections of the defendant and his counsel and to uphold the judgment by rejecting the appeal requests against the decision of the 21st Criminal Chamber of the Regional Court of Justice on the merits."