Facts
The case concerns a criminal trial against A. for various offenses, including theft, bodily harm, and property damage. The court of first instance sentenced A. to 10 years and 3 months in prison, as well as a fine and a therapeutic measure. A. appealed this judgment, contesting in particular the probative value of a medico-legal expert report. The cantonal court dismissed the appeal, considering that the expert report was valid despite the fact that A. had not been heard on the choice of expert and the questions asked.
A. then filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Court, contesting the cantonal court's decision and invoking a violation of his right to be heard. The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, considering that A.'s right to be heard had not been violated, as he had had the opportunity to comment on the expert report and the questions asked after its receipt.
Considerations
The Federal Court considered that the right to be heard, as guaranteed by art. 184 al. 3 CrimPC, implies that the parties must be heard on the choice of expert and the questions put to them. However, this rule does not apply when the parties have had the opportunity to comment on the expert report and the questions asked after their receipt.
The Federal Court also considered that the violation of the right to be heard…