Facts

Parties:

  • Appellant: [X.]
  • Respondent: [A.]
  • Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Schwyz

Facts:

  • On April 24, 2013, there was a dispute between [X.] and [A.] on the road.
  • On June 21, 2013, [X.] sent a letter to [A.] and neighbors, accusing [A.] of criminal acts.
  • On November 24, 2013, [X.] sent emails to [A.] 's business partners and a "press release" to neighbors, accusing [A.] of further crimes.
  • On May 2, 2014, [X.] sent letters to [A.] 's neighbors again.
  • The District Court of Höfe convicted [X.] of defamation and insult.
  • The Canton Court of Schwyz confirmed the judgment in the second instance.

Main issue:

  • [X.] appeals against his conviction for defamation and insult and makes various requests for findings.

Considerations

The lower court correctly affirmed the local jurisdiction of the Schwyz authorities, as the initial investigative actions were taken by the Public Prosecutor's Office of Höfe Einsiedeln. The justification of jurisdiction is already given by a not initially untenable criminal complaint or a police report. The appellant would have had to provide plausible explanations for differing crime scenes to challenge the jurisdiction.

The lower court did not violate the appellant's right to confrontation with the incriminating witness [E.] , as the appellant had the opportunity to comment on the written statements and ask questions. The written reports pursuant to Art. 145 CrimPC must not restrict the rights of the parties, and the appellant had the opportunity to comment on the written statements.

The lower court did not violate the principle of investigation by only investigating the incriminating circumstances. The investigation by the public prosecutor's office is not the subject of the federal…