Facts

Parties: Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Bern (appellant) against X. (respondent)

Court: Federal Supreme Court, Criminal Law Division

Date: April 30, 2015

Facts:

  • The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Bern conducted a criminal investigation against X. for multiple burglary thefts and other offenses.
  • On December 23, 2013, and December 27, 2013, X. was accused of two burglary thefts.
  • On December 23, 2013, three further (attempted) burglary thefts occurred in C., where X. was initially considered a possible perpetrator.
  • Due to lack of concrete evidence, the Regional Public Prosecutor's Office Oberland ordered the non-prosecution of the case on February 6, 2014.
  • On February 25, 2014, a report from the Forensic Science Service was received, indicating that a DNA trace of X. could be obtained from a grout scraper found at the crime scene.
  • The Regional Public Prosecutor's Office resumed the proceedings against X. and expanded the investigation.
  • The Higher Court of the Canton of Bern upheld the appeal of X. against the resumption order and set aside the order.
  • The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Bern filed an appeal in criminal matters.

Considerations

The appellant argued that the DNA trace constituted new evidence within the meaning of Art. 323 para. 1 CrimPC and that the resumption of the proceedings should be granted. The lower court denied this and did not consider the DNA trace as new evidence, as the Public Prosecutor's Office had already been aware of the possibility of a trace finding at the time of non-prosecution.

The Federal Supreme Court stated that, pursuant to Art. 323 para. 1 CrimPC, the resumption of a proceeding terminated by a dismissal order must be ordered if new evidence or facts become known that speak for the criminal responsibility of the accused person and that do not result from the previous files. These conditions must be cumulatively met.

Evidence is considered new if it was…