Aleksa Stojmenovic Death: Appeals Court Quashes Verdict
The Higher Court in Nis will again rule on the responsibility of O. P. (23) and Z. T., who each received one year in prison in the first verdict for the 2021 brawl in Aleksinac.
The Appeals Court in Nis has overturned the verdict that sentenced O. P. (23) and Z. T. to one year in prison each over a brawl in Aleksinac in which Aleksa Stojmenovic died in 2021. The case goes back to the Higher Court in Nis for a new ruling.
Court spokeswoman Tamara Savic announced the decision publicly on October 26: “The Appeals Court has overturned the first-instance verdict and returned the case to the Higher Court for a new ruling.”
What did the first-instance verdict establish?
On December 29, 2025, the Higher Court in Nis sentenced both men to one year in prison each for taking part in a brawl, not for causing a death. The first-instance court found that the video recording does not show the blow that killed Stojmenovic, and that expert opinions on the link between the blow and his death were conflicting.
The indictment went further than the verdict. The Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Nis charged O. P. with grievous bodily harm resulting in death, which carries two to 12 years in prison, and sought a sentence of at least nine years for him. For Z. T., charged with participating in a brawl, prosecutors sought at least one year.
How did the brawl begin?
The fight took place on May 16, 2021, on the terrace of a hospitality venue in Aleksinac, during an 18th birthday celebration. According to the indictment, after some shoving O. P. swung his right arm and struck Stojmenovic on the left side of the neck, causing an injury to the left vertebral artery. Stojmenovic died at the University Clinical Center in Nis, Nova reports.
A third defendant, M. S., reached a plea agreement with prosecutors, admitted the offense and was fined.
What is known about the appeals and the reasons?
Appeals were filed against the first-instance verdict, and the Appeals Court granted them. The reasons for overturning it are not given in the available reports.
Earlier in the proceedings, O. P.’s defense lawyer, Sasa Knezevic, argued that there is no evidence of his client’s guilt. In his view, the indictment rests on a faulty reading of a deficient video recording, given by an institution that, as he put it, is not authorized to do so. Nova identifies it as the Institute of Forensic Medicine. That is the defense’s earlier position, not a reaction to today’s decision.
The Higher Court in Nis will now rule again on the defendants’ guilt. Until a final verdict, O. P. and Z. T. are presumed innocent, and the available reports do not give a date for the new trial.
