Analysis of court decisions on crimes, including the question of the qualification of affect

<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Context</strong><strong> and relevance.</strong> Practical experience demonstrates frequent cases of inconsistency between expert conclusions and a court decision. This problem is particularly significant in the context of the examination of affect and the qualification of articles with a privileged corpus delicts. Studying the verdicts of courts of general jurisdiction will reveal the factors determining the ineffectiveness of the interaction between the law enforcement officer and the expert. The relevance of this work is determined by the need to identify the main disintegrating factors that hinder the effective use by courts of the conclusions of a comprehensive forensic psychological and psychiatric examination of affect. <strong>Objective.</strong> The study of problem areas of expert justifications on the qualification of the state of affect by analyzing their application by courts of general jurisdiction in sentencing. <strong>Methods and materials.</strong> 1,572 relevant court decisions were collected from 2013 to 2023. The study examined the decisions of the courts of first instance, the courts of appeal and the courts of cassation. <strong>Results.</strong> The prevailing consistency between expert and judicial qualifications in relation to affective offenses was found with a decrease in the number of cases involving an expert psychologist. The most acute problem is the interpretation by the law enforcement officer of the mention of individual psychological characteristics in the context of affect development. <strong>Conclusions</strong><strong>.</strong> It is shown that the discrepancy between court verdicts and conclusions of the forensic examination related to affective offenses is due to both expert errors and interpretations of expert opinions by the law enforcement officer. Comprehensive measures must be implemented to solve the problems of interaction between psychological experts and judicial authorities.</p>