Facts

Parties: Appellant [X.] , represented by attorney Jana Hrebik, against the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Zurich.

Subject: Inpatient therapeutic measure, appeal against the judgment of the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich, I. Criminal Chamber, of February 20, 2014.

Facts:

  • The District Court of Zurich convicted [X.] on June 24, 2013, of attempted serious bodily harm to a prison sentence of four years and ordered outpatient treatment under Art. 63 SCC.
  • [X.] filed an appeal, limited to the measure point.
  • The Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich confirmed on February 20, 2014, the district court judgment and ordered outpatient treatment under Art. 63 SCC without suspension of the execution of the penalty.
  • [X.] requested with a criminal appeal the annulment of the higher court judgment and the order of an inpatient measure under Art. 60 SCC with suspension of the execution of the penalty.

Considerations

1. The previous instance affirmed the prerequisites for an outpatient measure accompanying the execution of the penalty under Art. 63 SCC. This measure is indicated based on the expert opinion of the Psychiatric University Clinic Zurich of February 25, 2013. Inpatient addiction treatment in the sense of Art. 60 SCC should be postponed for the time being. The expert opinion only recommends inpatient addiction treatment in case the outpatient measure proves to be ineffective.

2. The appellant complains of arbitrary evaluation of evidence and incorrect application of federal law. The expert opinion of February 25, 2013, is not conclusive, namely insofar as the expert only considers the possibility of inpatient treatment after a potential failure of the outpatient measure. The previous instance evaluates the expert opinion in an untenable manner and overlooks that he only agrees to inpatient addiction treatment.

3. According to Art. 56 para. 1 SCC, a measure is to be ordered if a penalty alone is not suitable to counter the danger of further offenses by the offender. The court bases its decision on the ordering of inpatient or outpatient addiction treatment under Art. 60 and 63 SCC on an expert opinion. The court generally evaluates expert opinions freely but may not deviate from them in technical matters without valid reasons.

4. The psychiatric expert opinion of February 25, 2013, extensively addresses the mental state, treatability, willingness to undergo measures, and recidivism risk of the appellant. It discusses and evaluates outpatient measures, inpatient addiction treatments, and measures for young adults. The expert opinion assumes that for improving the…