Аннотация
The main idea of the study is to strictly limit the expert concept of «affect» within Complex Forensic Psychological and Psychiatric Examination to the culminating type, characterized by a total disruption of voluntary regulation, in order to ensure its correct legal application as «sudden strong emotional turmoil» (Articles 101 and 111 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan). The research methodology relies on a multi-factor theoretical and practical analysis of the legal and psychological basis of the concept of «affect» within the framework of forensic expertise. The study involved a thorough literature review covering methodological and organizational-legal foundations of Complex Forensic Psychological and Psychiatric Examination and the conceptual discrepancies of affect between general psychology and criminal law. The core analytical approach utilized was socio-psychological modeling of the individuals involved in the forensic assessment to evaluate the examinee's capacity for conscious action regulation. The study confirms a crucial conflict: the concept of «affect» differs significantly among general psychology, forensic psychology, and criminal law (Articles 101/111 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, referring to «sudden strong emotional turmoil»). The primary issue identified is the absence of a systemic approach in Complex Forensic Psychological and Psychiatric Examination to accurately link psychological findings to the specific legal criterion, leading to the potential confusion of true affect with other strong emotional states (stress, fear). For the effective application of Complex Forensic Psychological and Psychiatric Examination results and their correct correlation with the legal concept of «sudden strong emotional turmoil» (as per Articles 101 and 111 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), the expert concept of «affect» must be strictly limited to the culminating type, characterized by a total disruption of the voluntary regulation of behavior and temporary narrowing of consciousness, thereby eliminating the ambiguity resulting from the varying conceptual scopes in psychology and law and significantly increasing the objectivity and legal validity of the expert conclusion.