Facts
The Cantonal Court of St. Gallen convicted X. of multiple threats, trespassing, multiple insults, and bodily harm, sentencing him to nine months' imprisonment. X. filed a complaint in criminal matters, requesting that the contested judgment be partially overturned and the case be returned to the lower court for a new decision. The lower court was to be instructed to obtain an expert opinion that meets the legal requirements and, on the basis of this opinion, to reassess the sentence or decide anew on any potential measures.
The lower court had interpreted the term 'expert assessment' according to Art. 20 and 56 para. 3 SCC and Art. 182 ff. CrimPC to include psychologists as experts. The complainant argued that the lower court violated federal law by interpreting the term 'expert assessment' to include psychologists as experts.
Considerations
The Federal Court addressed the question of whether an 'expert person' within the meaning of Art. 20 and 56 para. 3 SCC must in all cases be a specialist in psychiatry and psychotherapy. The legislative materials and previous federal court jurisprudence tend to suggest that an 'expert person' must in all cases be a specialist in psychiatry and psychotherapy.
The Federal Court concluded that a specialist in psychiatry and psychotherapy is competent to diagnose or rule out any potential physical or organic causes. While the training and education of…