Facts

The appellant [A.] was sentenced by the High Court of the Canton of Aargau to 8 years' imprisonment for attempted intentional homicide of his wife [B.] . The public prosecutor's office had charged the appellant with attempted intentional homicide because he had wanted to make his wife calm and tired on the evening of January 27, 2015, by giving her Trimipramin in a glass of water, in order to be able to suffocate her with a pillow during the night without great effort.

The appellant requested the annulment of the judgment and his complete acquittal. He complained of a violation of Art. 141 CrimPC and an arbitrary evaluation of the evidence by the lower court.

The lower court had taken into account the statements of the appellant and the appellant's wife 2, the descriptions of various witnesses, the audio recordings made secretly by the appellant's wife 2, the internet research, the bottles containing Trimipramin, the paper waste found by the appellant's wife 2 with the envelope of the lawyer's letter, the psychiatric expert opinion regarding the appellant, as well as the medical findings of the physical examination of both the appellant and the appellant's wife 2.

Considerations

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal because the lower court had not arbitrarily evaluated the evidence and the conviction for attempted intentional homicide was justified. The lower court had taken into account the statements of the appellant and the appellant's wife 2, the descriptions of various witnesses, the audio recordings made secretly by the appellant's wife 2, the internet research, the bottles containing Trimipramin, the paper waste found by the appellant's wife 2 with the envelope of the lawyer's letter, the psychiatric expert opinion regarding the appellant, as well as the medical findings of the physical examination of both the appellant and the appellant's wife 2.

The Federal Court found that the lower court had not arbitrarily evaluated the evidence and that the conviction for attempted intentional homicide was justified. The lower court had taken into account the statements of the appellant and the appellant's wife 2, the descriptions of various witnesses, the audio recordings made secretly by the appellant's wife 2, the internet research, the bottles…