Facts

Parties: Appellant X. and Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Zurich

Facts: X. is accused of threatening the private plaintiff A. on November 22, 2012, around 4:10 PM at the tram stop "B.-Strasse" in Zurich, to kill her and her husband. The private plaintiff took the threat seriously and felt intimidated.

Procedural History: The District Court of Zurich sentenced X. to an 8-month imprisonment on February 15, 2013. The Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich confirmed the judgment on July 10, 2013. X. filed a criminal appeal, which was dismissed by the Federal Supreme Court.

Considerations

Initiation of Criminal Investigation (Art. 309 para. 3 CrimPC): The initiation order has merely declaratory effect. The criminal investigation is deemed initiated as soon as the public prosecutor's office begins with the case. A formal initiation order is not required, and its omission does not render the investigative actions invalid. In the present case, the investigation was initiated by the public prosecutor's office through the summons.

Interrogation of the Informant (Art. 178 lit. a, Art. 180 para. 2, Art. 181 para. 1 CrimPC): The private plaintiff was not interrogated by the police on behalf of the public prosecutor's office and was therefore not obliged to testify. The omission of the reference to the right to refuse to testify and the criminal consequences under Art. 303-305 SCC does not render the statements inadmissible, as the private plaintiff was later properly instructed as a witness and did not invoke her right to refuse to testify.

Allegation of Offense (Art. 158 para. 1 lit. a, Art. 143 para. 1 lit. b CrimPC): The appellant was informed of the time and place of the offense at the beginning of the first interrogation, which is sufficient as an allegation of offense. Information about the exact content of the threat is not required. The interrogations were therefore not contrary to procedural law.

Correction of the Record (Art. 79 para. 2 CrimPC): The record serves as the basis for establishing the facts. Recording contradictory statements does not violate the duty to record. The correction of the record only refers to subsequently discovered and asserted…