Facts
On January 15, 2015, X., Y. and Z. committed a qualified robbery to the detriment of the jewelry store B. in E. On December 5, 2016, the Criminal Court of the District of East Vaud convicted X. for these acts. X. appealed, which was partially upheld by the Criminal Appeals Court of the Vaud Cantonal Tribunal on June 13, 2017.
X. filed a criminal appeal to the Federal Tribunal against this judgment. He argues in particular that the Public Prosecutor's Office would have violated the principle of good faith by requesting a custodial sentence of seven years when, in the context of the simplified procedure, it had proposed a sentence of four and a half years. Furthermore, the Public Prosecutor's Office would have violated its obligation to record by removing the documents relating to the simplified procedure from the criminal file.
Considerations
The Federal Tribunal dismisses X.'s appeal.
According to Article 362 para. 4 CrimPC, the statements made by the parties in the perspective of the simplified procedure are not usable in the ordinary procedure that could follow, whether the failure of the simplified procedure occurs before or after the examination by the court of first instance. This rule aims to allow the freest possible negotiations between the parties.
The Federal Tribunal considers that Article 141 para. 5 CrimPC, which regulates the fate of unusable evidence, applies to the documents containing the statements referred to in Article 362 para. 4 CrimPC.…