Facts
Parties: Appellant X. against the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Higher Court of the Canton of Aargau
Court: Cassation Division of the Federal Supreme Court
Date: November 28, 2000
Main question: Whether a psychiatric expert opinion without personal examination of the appellant is admissible and whether this constitutes a violation of the right to be heard or the prohibition of arbitrariness.
Facts: The appellant X. was detained and filed a constitutional complaint, requesting the annulment of the Higher Court's judgment and his immediate release from detention. The Higher Court had primarily relied on a psychiatric expert opinion by Dr. Kiesewetter, which was prepared without personal examination of the appellant. The appellant argued that this constituted a violation of his right to be heard and the prohibition of arbitrariness.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court first examined whether the right to be heard (Art. 29 para. 2 Cst.) had been violated. It found that the right to be heard serves both the clarification of the facts and the right to participate in the issuance of a decision. The appellant had the opportunity to express himself and to participate in the collection of essential evidence.
Subsequently, the Court examined whether the decision of the Higher Court was arbitrary (Art. 9 Cst.). A decision is arbitrary if it is obviously untenable, clearly contradicts the factual situation, or grossly violates a norm or an undisputed legal principle. The Federal Supreme Court found that the Higher Court had not acted arbitrarily, as it relied on a psychiatric expert opinion based on previous expert opinions and documents.
The Federal Supreme Court analyzed the admissibility of a psychiatric expert opinion without personal examination. It found that such expert opinions are only…