Facts

Parties: Appellant [A.X.] against the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Zurich.

Subject: Multiple violations of the Narcotics Act, legal hearing, arbitrariness, violation of the principle of accusation, sentencing.

Facts:

[A.X.] is accused of having been involved in cocaine trafficking together with the co-defendant [Y.] . Specifically, he is alleged to have received 400 grams of cocaine from [Y.] for resale in November/December 2008. Before February 19, 2009, he is said to have received another 500 grams of cocaine from him and sold 200 grams of it by February 19, 2009. Finally, he is said to have asked [Y.] on March 13, 2009, whether he could obtain a portion of 10 grams of cocaine for resale to a third party.

The District Court of Zurich convicted [A.X.] with judgment of March 19, 2012 to 32 months' imprisonment. The Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich reduced the prison sentence to 30 months and suspended the execution of the prison sentence for 24 months on probation for 2 years. The unconditionally enforceable part of the sentence was set at 6 months.

[A.X.] files an appeal in criminal matters and requests that the contested judgment be set aside and that he be fully acquitted. Alternatively, the case should be referred back to the lower court for a new decision.

Considerations

According to Art. 42 para. 1 and 2 FSCA, the grounds for the appeal must briefly explain how the contested act violates the law. This requires that the appellant at least briefly addresses the considerations of the contested decision. The grounds must be contained in the appeal itself. A mere reference to arguments in other legal writings or to the files is insufficient.

On January 1, 2011, the Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure (CrimPC) entered into force. The transitional provisions are based on the principle of replacing the previous procedural laws of the Confederation and the cantons with the CrimPC as soon as possible. According to Art. 448 para. 1 CrimPC, proceedings pending at the time the CrimPC enters into force are continued under the new law, unless the law provides otherwise. The application of simple cantonal law is excluded from review by the Federal Supreme Court pursuant to Art. 95 FSCA. It can only be challenged by appeal to the Federal Supreme Court if it is alleged that it simultaneously violates the prohibition of arbitrariness under Art. 9 Cst.

The appellant raises a number of formal objections. He complains, inter alia, that the record of the first interrogation of May 26, 2010 was not signed by the recorder. The lower court states that the recorder did not sign the record of the detention interrogation of May 26, 2010. However, this merely constitutes a violation of an order which has no further consequences, in particular does not result in the invalidity of the interrogation in question. The mentioned detention interrogation is therefore admissible.

The appellant further complains that in the final interrogation, neither the result of the investigation nor the essential pieces of evidence with reference to the file, in particular the monitored conversations and the recorded statements of the co-defendants, were presented to him. The lower court considers that the public prosecutor's office referred to the recorded telephone conversations in the interrogation of October 10, 2011. To this extent, the appellant was sufficiently informed about the essential pieces of evidence on which the indictment was based. Moreover, all the offenses…